Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Forever Purge (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021
The Purger's costumes (1 more)
The film's genuinely bad ass female characters.
There's no character development. (1 more)
The film is just more of the same.
America, A Ho-Hum Dystopia
Searching for stability in the face of record high levels of illegal immigration resulting from a surge in refugees fleeing cartel violence in Mexico and a growing wave of White Supremacy and anti-hispanic racism in the United States, the New Founding Fathers of America have proposed the unthinkable in order to solve the nation’s problems: the reinstatement of the Purge.
Written by The Purge creator James DeMonaco and directed by Everardo Gout, The Forever Purge is the fifth film in the franchise and its first entry since The Purge TV series ended after only two seasons in 2019.
Taking place primarily in Los Felis Valley, Texas, The Forever Purge follows Mexican refugees Adela (Ana de la Reguera) and Juan (Tenoch Huerta), who despite having made a life in America after living in the country for just ten months, continue to find themselves the victims of racism.
A talented cowboy, Juan works for the financially successful Tucker family on their ranch alongside Dylan (Josh Lucas), a member of the Tucker family who isn’t as good of a cowboy as Juan and lets his “white man good, Mexican bad” mentality drive his actions way more often than he should.
With the announcement that the Purge will be reinstated, the two buckle down and prepare to survive their first ever experience with the country’s most gruesome tradition. While the two successfully find sanctuary and survive the initial 12 hours of the sanctioned Purge, they emerge to find that many US citizens have just outright refused to stop purging.
Amidst the chaos, Canada and Mexico open their borders for six hours, allowing anyone not interesting in partaking in the events and wants to survive to flee to one of respective countries. However, the two countries also announce that after these six hours pass, they will be closing their American borders forever, preventing any further escape.
As the entire nation falls into chaos, its citizens begin to realize that The Forever Purge has begun.
The fifth film in the franchise and the latest installment since The Purge tv series ended in 2019, The Forever Purge is pretty much of the same for the horror franchise – in other words, it’s not going to make or break the opinion you already have about these movies.
A definite improvement over The First Purge, which one could argue is the worst film in the series, the performances in The Forever Purge in particular are leaps and bounds better in comparison to those found in its predecessor
You know how there are some movies where, for some reason or another, you don’t watch every trailer it drops before release, and thus are end up surprised when the film turns out to be completely different from the one-note-concept you imagined it would have?
While the upside to this avoidance of marketing material is that you’re almost completely in the dark about a given film prior to seeing it, the downside is that what your own imagined concept of the film may have more more potential than the final product.
The Forever Purge was one such film for me. For some reason, I thought the movie took place in a not-too-distant future where the majority of the country had become a desolate wasteland, water was scarce, and tumbleweeds were the closest thing to a pet anyone had.
Not only that, but I imagined that The Purge, long-outlawed in this post-apocalyptic future, had been reinstated as a full-time event by a group of crazed desperadoes.
Sadly, my idea of a western-slash-Mad Max-inspired Purge film ended up being way more interesting than The Forever Purge actually was, as most of the film’s creativity is found not in the Purge itself, but rather in the expansion to the franchise’s lore – specifically the state in which the USA is left in by the end of the film, as well as the end credits reveal of where Americans across the country are located
A Purger in The Forever Purge, directed by Everardo Valerio Gout.As a result, The Forever Purge ends with the franchise seemingly having lost whatever bite it may have once had. Kills are about as memorable as a bug splat on your windshield while driving on the highway, character development is minimal at best, and you aren’t invested in the outcome of what’s transpiring whatsoever.
You also don’t really know who the protagonists of the film are. Do you root for the successful family that doesn’t know how to cooperate outside of its own race, or the married couple that came to this country illegally?
Furthermore, why is it that each film’s unique masked purgers, who literally show up for only a handful of scenes in each of their respective appearances, are the best part of these films? It’s like really awesome DLC for a lifelessly dull video game.
While the action-horror film does at least introduce two strong female characters, Dylan Tucker’s wife, Cassidy (Cassidy Freeman), isn’t one of them. Her defining characteristics are that she’s pregnant and helpless.
However, Dylan’s younger sister, Harper (Leven Rambin), is awesome. She knows how to use a gun, is resourceful, intelligent, and breaks the ‘dumb blonde’ stereotype we’re all too familiar with.
Ana de la Reguera also rectifies her death in Army of the Dead with her performance as Adela, a former member of a group of women who fought against the cartel in Mexico who can fight, has knowledge of weapons, and knows how to navigate the city in the safest way possible. In other words, she’s a bad ass.
While The Forever Purge is meant to serve as a ‘final entry’ for the franchise, everything is left wide open at the end of the film, just in case another sequel gets greenlit. After all, we know how the general movie-going population just loves to keep mediocre franchises alive.
As such, nothing is resolved by the end of film, and the Forever Purge ends up being just what it sounds like: never ending.
The issue with this non-ending is that where the franchise could potentially go and where it’s actually going are two entirely different things, and thus the end result of the Forever Purge is way more disappointing because of this split.
A lackluster Purge entry at best that is only considered decent because the film that came before it is so awful, The Forever Purge does put some effort into attempting to put a different spin on how we view immigrants, but even that seems half-cocked at best.
With a concept this stagnant, The Forever Purge has successfully done what other horror movies have never been able to do; make deaths, murdering, and killing a total bore. Hopefully, with any luck, The Purge franchise will pillage and murder itself with this entry.
Written by The Purge creator James DeMonaco and directed by Everardo Gout, The Forever Purge is the fifth film in the franchise and its first entry since The Purge TV series ended after only two seasons in 2019.
Taking place primarily in Los Felis Valley, Texas, The Forever Purge follows Mexican refugees Adela (Ana de la Reguera) and Juan (Tenoch Huerta), who despite having made a life in America after living in the country for just ten months, continue to find themselves the victims of racism.
A talented cowboy, Juan works for the financially successful Tucker family on their ranch alongside Dylan (Josh Lucas), a member of the Tucker family who isn’t as good of a cowboy as Juan and lets his “white man good, Mexican bad” mentality drive his actions way more often than he should.
With the announcement that the Purge will be reinstated, the two buckle down and prepare to survive their first ever experience with the country’s most gruesome tradition. While the two successfully find sanctuary and survive the initial 12 hours of the sanctioned Purge, they emerge to find that many US citizens have just outright refused to stop purging.
Amidst the chaos, Canada and Mexico open their borders for six hours, allowing anyone not interesting in partaking in the events and wants to survive to flee to one of respective countries. However, the two countries also announce that after these six hours pass, they will be closing their American borders forever, preventing any further escape.
As the entire nation falls into chaos, its citizens begin to realize that The Forever Purge has begun.
The fifth film in the franchise and the latest installment since The Purge tv series ended in 2019, The Forever Purge is pretty much of the same for the horror franchise – in other words, it’s not going to make or break the opinion you already have about these movies.
A definite improvement over The First Purge, which one could argue is the worst film in the series, the performances in The Forever Purge in particular are leaps and bounds better in comparison to those found in its predecessor
You know how there are some movies where, for some reason or another, you don’t watch every trailer it drops before release, and thus are end up surprised when the film turns out to be completely different from the one-note-concept you imagined it would have?
While the upside to this avoidance of marketing material is that you’re almost completely in the dark about a given film prior to seeing it, the downside is that what your own imagined concept of the film may have more more potential than the final product.
The Forever Purge was one such film for me. For some reason, I thought the movie took place in a not-too-distant future where the majority of the country had become a desolate wasteland, water was scarce, and tumbleweeds were the closest thing to a pet anyone had.
Not only that, but I imagined that The Purge, long-outlawed in this post-apocalyptic future, had been reinstated as a full-time event by a group of crazed desperadoes.
Sadly, my idea of a western-slash-Mad Max-inspired Purge film ended up being way more interesting than The Forever Purge actually was, as most of the film’s creativity is found not in the Purge itself, but rather in the expansion to the franchise’s lore – specifically the state in which the USA is left in by the end of the film, as well as the end credits reveal of where Americans across the country are located
A Purger in The Forever Purge, directed by Everardo Valerio Gout.As a result, The Forever Purge ends with the franchise seemingly having lost whatever bite it may have once had. Kills are about as memorable as a bug splat on your windshield while driving on the highway, character development is minimal at best, and you aren’t invested in the outcome of what’s transpiring whatsoever.
You also don’t really know who the protagonists of the film are. Do you root for the successful family that doesn’t know how to cooperate outside of its own race, or the married couple that came to this country illegally?
Furthermore, why is it that each film’s unique masked purgers, who literally show up for only a handful of scenes in each of their respective appearances, are the best part of these films? It’s like really awesome DLC for a lifelessly dull video game.
While the action-horror film does at least introduce two strong female characters, Dylan Tucker’s wife, Cassidy (Cassidy Freeman), isn’t one of them. Her defining characteristics are that she’s pregnant and helpless.
However, Dylan’s younger sister, Harper (Leven Rambin), is awesome. She knows how to use a gun, is resourceful, intelligent, and breaks the ‘dumb blonde’ stereotype we’re all too familiar with.
Ana de la Reguera also rectifies her death in Army of the Dead with her performance as Adela, a former member of a group of women who fought against the cartel in Mexico who can fight, has knowledge of weapons, and knows how to navigate the city in the safest way possible. In other words, she’s a bad ass.
While The Forever Purge is meant to serve as a ‘final entry’ for the franchise, everything is left wide open at the end of the film, just in case another sequel gets greenlit. After all, we know how the general movie-going population just loves to keep mediocre franchises alive.
As such, nothing is resolved by the end of film, and the Forever Purge ends up being just what it sounds like: never ending.
The issue with this non-ending is that where the franchise could potentially go and where it’s actually going are two entirely different things, and thus the end result of the Forever Purge is way more disappointing because of this split.
A lackluster Purge entry at best that is only considered decent because the film that came before it is so awful, The Forever Purge does put some effort into attempting to put a different spin on how we view immigrants, but even that seems half-cocked at best.
With a concept this stagnant, The Forever Purge has successfully done what other horror movies have never been able to do; make deaths, murdering, and killing a total bore. Hopefully, with any luck, The Purge franchise will pillage and murder itself with this entry.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Secret Place in Books
Feb 13, 2018
The fifth installment in Tana French's Dublin Murder Squad series reintroduces some familiar faces, notably Holly Mackey, Frank Mackey, and Stephen Moran from French's [b:Faithful Place|7093952|Faithful Place (Dublin Murder Squad, #3)|Tana French|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1291165900s/7093952.jpg|7350661]. Detective Moran is toiling away in Cold Cases, dreaming of joining the Murder Squad, when Holly shows up. She holds in her hand a card reading "I know who killed him," featuring a photo of Chris Harper, a handsome boy from a private school who was killed a year ago. Suddenly, Stephen finds himself inserted into the middle of St. Kilda's School, Holly's private all-girls' school, the neighborhood school to Chris', and the place where his body was found. Stephen joins up with the Murder Squad's Detective Antoinette Conway, one of the original leads on Chris' case, to find out what happened. But Stephen quickly realizes that Antoinette isn't a popular figure in the Squad, and that the girls of St. Kilda's are a tight-knit, complicated bunch whose interconnected relationships present Conway and Moran many obstacles in finding Chris' killer. Can they find the killer before the girls close ranks for good?
This was a typical Tana French mystery in many ways. This novel is compelling, as always, featuring thoughtful and reflective characters and a detailed, well-plotted mystery. The story is told in alternating chapters by Stephen (in the present-day) and then flashes back to various sections told by the girls of St. Kilda's, who are telling bits of the story leading up to Chris' death. It's an excellent technique because Stephen's portion covers basically 24 hours, as he and Antoinette rush to solve the crime before the girls can cover their tracks once and for all. But by going into the past, French effectively builds suspense and allows us to meet the various teens in her tale (about eight in all, which is a lot at times).
Overall, she does an good job of capturing teen culture: particularly, I'm sure, the culture of British teens in boarding school (shockingly, something I'm not too familiar with). While the descriptions of the girls gets a little tedious (a lot of blond, straightened hair), their personalities are clear and develop easily over the course of the novel. The commentary on the bonds of teen friendship is excellent. For me, Stephen wasn't one of my all-time favorite French protagonists, but I enjoyed the dynamic between him and Conway and how the window into their lives is basically less than 24 hours.
The mystery portion was a little less enjoyable for me than some of French's other novels and a bit of a let down at the end, but it was still a great read. One of my favorite things about French's books is how they easily transport you into another world while reading--you find yourself lost in the characters and their world--and this one was no exception. 3.5 strong stars. I'm looking forward to her next novel, which is supposed to feature Conway again.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;
This was a typical Tana French mystery in many ways. This novel is compelling, as always, featuring thoughtful and reflective characters and a detailed, well-plotted mystery. The story is told in alternating chapters by Stephen (in the present-day) and then flashes back to various sections told by the girls of St. Kilda's, who are telling bits of the story leading up to Chris' death. It's an excellent technique because Stephen's portion covers basically 24 hours, as he and Antoinette rush to solve the crime before the girls can cover their tracks once and for all. But by going into the past, French effectively builds suspense and allows us to meet the various teens in her tale (about eight in all, which is a lot at times).
Overall, she does an good job of capturing teen culture: particularly, I'm sure, the culture of British teens in boarding school (shockingly, something I'm not too familiar with). While the descriptions of the girls gets a little tedious (a lot of blond, straightened hair), their personalities are clear and develop easily over the course of the novel. The commentary on the bonds of teen friendship is excellent. For me, Stephen wasn't one of my all-time favorite French protagonists, but I enjoyed the dynamic between him and Conway and how the window into their lives is basically less than 24 hours.
The mystery portion was a little less enjoyable for me than some of French's other novels and a bit of a let down at the end, but it was still a great read. One of my favorite things about French's books is how they easily transport you into another world while reading--you find yourself lost in the characters and their world--and this one was no exception. 3.5 strong stars. I'm looking forward to her next novel, which is supposed to feature Conway again.
<a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">My Blog</a> ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/justacatandbook">Twitter</a>;
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Village (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Deep within a lush meadow a thriving community is enjoying a communal dinner following the passing of a young member of the town. The smiles and laughter that emerge from those seated at the table hide that fact that the town lives in perpetual fear of an unspeakable evil.
The towns residents are haunted by creatures that are referred to as “Those we do not speak of” and are bound within the borders of their village by a long-standing set of rules. The rules consist of not having a trace of the color red anywhere within the town, and never breaking the boarders of the village as angering the creatures or venturing into their territory is sure to result in certain death.
Under the leadership of Edward Walker (William Hurt), the village has grown and a truce has been maintained with the creatures by following the rules of conduct that have been established. Walker is a happy man as his oldest daughter is marrying and his blind younger daughter Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard) is becoming very close to Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix). On what should be joyous time in the community, instead becomes one of fear as mutilated animals and bizarre sightings have been found throughout the village indicating that the creatures from the woods have become annoyed and are making their displeasure with the local townsfolk known.
Lucius has provoked this situation by his challenge of the borders and has admitted that he has ventured into the woods and desires to travel to the towns that the elders speak of that lay beyond the woods. This is put off as youthful indiscretions and when Lucius agrees not to travel and his intentions to marry Ivy, things seem to be right in the world, especially to his mother Alice (Sigourney Weaver), who worried that her son would meet a bad end the same way her late husband did.
Things do not go as planned as an unforeseen accident has caused dire repercussions for the town and forces the town elders to allow travel beyond the village as not doing so can have even larger repercussions than doing so.
What should be a tight thriller instead becomes a mess as “The Village” suffers from a bad plot and terrible sequencing that eliminates much of the suspense in the film. We were asked not to reveal the surprise ending, but suffice it to say, that 6 minutes into the film, I looked at my watch, and told my friend what I thought the surprise twist would be. Low and behold, I was dead on as the film offers very little surprises.
This is a tragic shame as the concept of the film is good and the cast and performances are first rate especially Adrian Brody in a supporting performance and the amazing work of Hurt and Phoenix. Sadly it all becomes much ado about nothing as the film promises so much and yet delivers amazingly little. Writer/Director M. Night Shyamlan has created 2/3 of a great film but the pacing of the film and resolution of the key events of the story are so badly done, they make you wonder if he was asleep. Case in point, there is a key plot point that is revealed in the film that later undermines a sequence in the woods and destroys a golden opportunity of discovery and shock for the audience as what should be a tense moment with a shocking conclusion is instead watered down by information that was revealed in a flashback that never should have been shown to the audience prior to the scene.
This is such a hard film to review as I find fault with segments yet am unable to really explain my criticisms without giving away key points to the plot. I guess the best way to describe the film would be to think of it as an episode of “The Outer Limits” or “Twilight Zone”. It has a great premise, but unlike the two series, the outcome is badly done and at least for me, very easy to see coming. At least it took me 15 minutes to see the twist in “The Sixth Sense”, and allowed me to enjoy the story despite this fact. Once I figured out what twist the story would take, the film implodes as the entire premise is based upon a flimsy base that once exposed, causes the film to implode like a house of cards.
My advice, wait for the DVD.
The towns residents are haunted by creatures that are referred to as “Those we do not speak of” and are bound within the borders of their village by a long-standing set of rules. The rules consist of not having a trace of the color red anywhere within the town, and never breaking the boarders of the village as angering the creatures or venturing into their territory is sure to result in certain death.
Under the leadership of Edward Walker (William Hurt), the village has grown and a truce has been maintained with the creatures by following the rules of conduct that have been established. Walker is a happy man as his oldest daughter is marrying and his blind younger daughter Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard) is becoming very close to Lucius Hunt (Joaquin Phoenix). On what should be joyous time in the community, instead becomes one of fear as mutilated animals and bizarre sightings have been found throughout the village indicating that the creatures from the woods have become annoyed and are making their displeasure with the local townsfolk known.
Lucius has provoked this situation by his challenge of the borders and has admitted that he has ventured into the woods and desires to travel to the towns that the elders speak of that lay beyond the woods. This is put off as youthful indiscretions and when Lucius agrees not to travel and his intentions to marry Ivy, things seem to be right in the world, especially to his mother Alice (Sigourney Weaver), who worried that her son would meet a bad end the same way her late husband did.
Things do not go as planned as an unforeseen accident has caused dire repercussions for the town and forces the town elders to allow travel beyond the village as not doing so can have even larger repercussions than doing so.
What should be a tight thriller instead becomes a mess as “The Village” suffers from a bad plot and terrible sequencing that eliminates much of the suspense in the film. We were asked not to reveal the surprise ending, but suffice it to say, that 6 minutes into the film, I looked at my watch, and told my friend what I thought the surprise twist would be. Low and behold, I was dead on as the film offers very little surprises.
This is a tragic shame as the concept of the film is good and the cast and performances are first rate especially Adrian Brody in a supporting performance and the amazing work of Hurt and Phoenix. Sadly it all becomes much ado about nothing as the film promises so much and yet delivers amazingly little. Writer/Director M. Night Shyamlan has created 2/3 of a great film but the pacing of the film and resolution of the key events of the story are so badly done, they make you wonder if he was asleep. Case in point, there is a key plot point that is revealed in the film that later undermines a sequence in the woods and destroys a golden opportunity of discovery and shock for the audience as what should be a tense moment with a shocking conclusion is instead watered down by information that was revealed in a flashback that never should have been shown to the audience prior to the scene.
This is such a hard film to review as I find fault with segments yet am unable to really explain my criticisms without giving away key points to the plot. I guess the best way to describe the film would be to think of it as an episode of “The Outer Limits” or “Twilight Zone”. It has a great premise, but unlike the two series, the outcome is badly done and at least for me, very easy to see coming. At least it took me 15 minutes to see the twist in “The Sixth Sense”, and allowed me to enjoy the story despite this fact. Once I figured out what twist the story would take, the film implodes as the entire premise is based upon a flimsy base that once exposed, causes the film to implode like a house of cards.
My advice, wait for the DVD.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Will Smith plays top US hit-man Henry Brogan who is making the world "safer" one bullet at a time! With the mirror telling him his age, Henry hands in his firearm (not withstanding the arsenal under his stairs) to spend more time going fishing and doing the crossword.
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Lone Wolf McQuade (1983) in Movies
Oct 6, 2017
L is for Lethal
Contains spoilers, click to show
Lone Wolf McQuade (P. 2/9/08)
As my ex-husband and his co-workers once discussed, this 1983 Chuck Norris classic contains an inexhaustible list of “man movie” elements. I shall enumerate just a few of the highlights here (spoiler warning):
Turbo-charged truck that hasn’t been washed in 20 years…check.
Multiple cut-away scenes containing only foul language…check.
Good guy silhouetted on cliff…check.
Too-tight pants…check.
Too-hairy chest…check.
Good guy lives in filthy, ramshackle bachelor pad…check.
Good guy assigned a partner that he doesn’t want…check.
Feds interfering with good guy’s investigation…check.
Evil, maniacally laughing, midget villain in a wheelchair…check.
Bad guys attempting to kill good guy’s daughter…check.
Same daughter later gets abducted by bad guys…check.
Good guy has disproportionately hot girlfriend…check.
Same girlfriend wears nothing but good-guy’s shirt, post coital…check.
Good guy hanging off hood of moving vehicle…check.
Good guys outnumbered by bad guys in every fight scene…check.
Single, long-range gunshot or arrow from crossbow causing car explosion…check.
Bad guy using a contrived mechanism to kill good guy, instead of simply shooting him in the head…check.
Beer, beer, and more beer, which magically revitalizes the good guy…check.
Strategically placed blood…check.
Flaming barrels…check.
Women totally incapable of defending themselves…check.
Good guy and bad guy putting down their weapons and facing off in physical fight…check.
Hot girlfriend dying in good guy’s arms, while professing her guilt and undying love…check.
More flaming barrels…check.
I could go on and on.
Among many other cheesy elements in this movie, I especially enjoyed the moments of obvious symbolism. The opening shot contains a psychedelic-looking, lone wolf accompanied by nothing but whistling. Later, when the bad guys attempt to kill Lone Wolf McQuade, they first assassinate his pet wolf. Foreshadowing, anyone? Another blatant symbol appears when Captain Tyler lectures McQuade about the public image of a ranger. The Captain holds a ruler in his hand, presumably because McQuade doesn’t “measure up” to his expectations. Ha!
In the most entertaining scene of the movie, Lone Wolf has been buried alive in his truck by the bad guy. Beaten and broken, he opens a can of beer found on the front seat, pours it over his effusively sweaty self, takes a sip, and then finds the strength to go on. With his eyes closed, and his head thrown back, he alternately opens and clenches his jaw while emitting a prolonged man-grunt. He then steps dramatically on the accelerator of his super-charged vehicle and is able to drive out of his own grave.
With the ridiculous costuming, cliché dialogue, subpar acting, and utterly horrible score, this film would have worked far better as a comedy. If you plan to watch it, expect to be incredulous, and try to avoid staring directly at Chuck’s hairy chest.
As my ex-husband and his co-workers once discussed, this 1983 Chuck Norris classic contains an inexhaustible list of “man movie” elements. I shall enumerate just a few of the highlights here (spoiler warning):
Turbo-charged truck that hasn’t been washed in 20 years…check.
Multiple cut-away scenes containing only foul language…check.
Good guy silhouetted on cliff…check.
Too-tight pants…check.
Too-hairy chest…check.
Good guy lives in filthy, ramshackle bachelor pad…check.
Good guy assigned a partner that he doesn’t want…check.
Feds interfering with good guy’s investigation…check.
Evil, maniacally laughing, midget villain in a wheelchair…check.
Bad guys attempting to kill good guy’s daughter…check.
Same daughter later gets abducted by bad guys…check.
Good guy has disproportionately hot girlfriend…check.
Same girlfriend wears nothing but good-guy’s shirt, post coital…check.
Good guy hanging off hood of moving vehicle…check.
Good guys outnumbered by bad guys in every fight scene…check.
Single, long-range gunshot or arrow from crossbow causing car explosion…check.
Bad guy using a contrived mechanism to kill good guy, instead of simply shooting him in the head…check.
Beer, beer, and more beer, which magically revitalizes the good guy…check.
Strategically placed blood…check.
Flaming barrels…check.
Women totally incapable of defending themselves…check.
Good guy and bad guy putting down their weapons and facing off in physical fight…check.
Hot girlfriend dying in good guy’s arms, while professing her guilt and undying love…check.
More flaming barrels…check.
I could go on and on.
Among many other cheesy elements in this movie, I especially enjoyed the moments of obvious symbolism. The opening shot contains a psychedelic-looking, lone wolf accompanied by nothing but whistling. Later, when the bad guys attempt to kill Lone Wolf McQuade, they first assassinate his pet wolf. Foreshadowing, anyone? Another blatant symbol appears when Captain Tyler lectures McQuade about the public image of a ranger. The Captain holds a ruler in his hand, presumably because McQuade doesn’t “measure up” to his expectations. Ha!
In the most entertaining scene of the movie, Lone Wolf has been buried alive in his truck by the bad guy. Beaten and broken, he opens a can of beer found on the front seat, pours it over his effusively sweaty self, takes a sip, and then finds the strength to go on. With his eyes closed, and his head thrown back, he alternately opens and clenches his jaw while emitting a prolonged man-grunt. He then steps dramatically on the accelerator of his super-charged vehicle and is able to drive out of his own grave.
With the ridiculous costuming, cliché dialogue, subpar acting, and utterly horrible score, this film would have worked far better as a comedy. If you plan to watch it, expect to be incredulous, and try to avoid staring directly at Chuck’s hairy chest.
Graham Bonnet: The Story Behind the Shades
Book
Graham Bonnet was born in Skegness in 1947 and had his first hit single with The Marbles in 1968,...
Sybu for Kodi and XBMC
Entertainment and Music
App
Sybu Remote Control for Kodi Media Centre http://kodi.tv and XBMC •Remote Control Kodi media...
Sarah (7800 KP) rated It’s A Sin in TV
Feb 7, 2021
Outstanding drama
It’s A Sin is the latest drama from the mind of Russell T Davies, the man behind Queer as Folk, Cucumber and the revival of Doctor Who back in 2005. It follows a group of gay men and their friends in London from 1981 to 1991, depicting how the developing HIV and AIDS crisis impacted on their lives.
The series concentrates on 5 friends who meet in 1981 and move into a flat together. There’s outgoing and smart Ritchie (Olly Alexander), shy and mild mannered Colin (Callum Scott Howells), flamboyant Nigerian Roscoe (Omari Douglas), sweet Ash (Nathaniel Curtis) and outgoing, responsible Jill (Lydia West). It’s A Sin follows the friends as they party and lead promiscuous lifestyles over the 80s, only for the AIDS crisis to slowly weave its way into their lives and affect friends and colleagues closest to them. Each deals with the developing crisis in their own way: Jill fights for AIDS awareness and help for those that are suffering, whereas Ritchie remains in denial and spreads conspiracy theories about AIDS. But by 1991, the lives of the group and their families have been irrevocably changed.
It’s A Sin is a powerful drama about an emotive and serious subject. While it is not based on a completely true story (only Jill is loosely based on a real person, Jill Nalder, a friend of Davies), Russell T Davies has based this around his and his friends experiences of the AIDS crisis in the 80s and watching this you can really believe that these sorts of events happened across the 80s and 90s. The attitudes and experiences shown here, from the hedonistic lifestyles to the rampant denial and conspiracy theories, are terrifying and sadly a true to life depiction of the attitudes at the time, and make for a rather emotional and sometimes harrowing watch.
Despite the serious subject, It’s A Sin isn’t entirely sombre. It starts out as a story of friendship and fun and there are a lot of heartwarming scenes and a surprising amount of laughs. Some might think the uplifting side of this drama detracts from the seriousness of the AIDS crisis, but personally I found the lighthearted scenes helped balance the rather sobering seriousness, especially as the episodes gradually become more and more grave as the crisis progresses. Even the gay sex scenes are fun and made mostly for laughs rather than any sort of eroticism. It’s impressive that Davies has managed to pull off a series that seamlessly blends lighthearted entertainment with a serious topic, without making light of such a harrowing crisis.
It helps that the cast are fantastic. Olly Alexander, who I knew nothing about other than recognising a few Years and Years songs, is an absolute star and a standout as Ritchie. He’s charismatic and engaging and when he’s on screen, you can’t take your eyes off him. The rest of the main cast too are just as good, especially this being their first major tv role in the case of Howells and Douglas. They’re ably supported by a host of seasoned veterans, including Neil Patrick Harris as Colin’s work colleague, Stephen Fry as a closeted MP that Roscoe meets, and Keeley Hawes and Shaun Dooley as Ritchie’s parents. Hawes and Dooley are especially moving and ultimately surprising in the later episodes, when their true attitudes as parents are revealed. My only real criticism of this series is so minor it’s barely worth mentioning, but I did get a little frustrated that Ritchie’s full name was Ritchie Tozer, as this is the same name as Richie Tozier from Stephen King’s IT. Admittedly a different spelling, but it did grate on me a little throughout the episodes as it’s not exactly a common name.
However despite my reservations on character naming, It’s A Sin is a fantastic heartwarming yet sobering drama that can’t be faulted. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen anything so engaging and emotional.
The series concentrates on 5 friends who meet in 1981 and move into a flat together. There’s outgoing and smart Ritchie (Olly Alexander), shy and mild mannered Colin (Callum Scott Howells), flamboyant Nigerian Roscoe (Omari Douglas), sweet Ash (Nathaniel Curtis) and outgoing, responsible Jill (Lydia West). It’s A Sin follows the friends as they party and lead promiscuous lifestyles over the 80s, only for the AIDS crisis to slowly weave its way into their lives and affect friends and colleagues closest to them. Each deals with the developing crisis in their own way: Jill fights for AIDS awareness and help for those that are suffering, whereas Ritchie remains in denial and spreads conspiracy theories about AIDS. But by 1991, the lives of the group and their families have been irrevocably changed.
It’s A Sin is a powerful drama about an emotive and serious subject. While it is not based on a completely true story (only Jill is loosely based on a real person, Jill Nalder, a friend of Davies), Russell T Davies has based this around his and his friends experiences of the AIDS crisis in the 80s and watching this you can really believe that these sorts of events happened across the 80s and 90s. The attitudes and experiences shown here, from the hedonistic lifestyles to the rampant denial and conspiracy theories, are terrifying and sadly a true to life depiction of the attitudes at the time, and make for a rather emotional and sometimes harrowing watch.
Despite the serious subject, It’s A Sin isn’t entirely sombre. It starts out as a story of friendship and fun and there are a lot of heartwarming scenes and a surprising amount of laughs. Some might think the uplifting side of this drama detracts from the seriousness of the AIDS crisis, but personally I found the lighthearted scenes helped balance the rather sobering seriousness, especially as the episodes gradually become more and more grave as the crisis progresses. Even the gay sex scenes are fun and made mostly for laughs rather than any sort of eroticism. It’s impressive that Davies has managed to pull off a series that seamlessly blends lighthearted entertainment with a serious topic, without making light of such a harrowing crisis.
It helps that the cast are fantastic. Olly Alexander, who I knew nothing about other than recognising a few Years and Years songs, is an absolute star and a standout as Ritchie. He’s charismatic and engaging and when he’s on screen, you can’t take your eyes off him. The rest of the main cast too are just as good, especially this being their first major tv role in the case of Howells and Douglas. They’re ably supported by a host of seasoned veterans, including Neil Patrick Harris as Colin’s work colleague, Stephen Fry as a closeted MP that Roscoe meets, and Keeley Hawes and Shaun Dooley as Ritchie’s parents. Hawes and Dooley are especially moving and ultimately surprising in the later episodes, when their true attitudes as parents are revealed. My only real criticism of this series is so minor it’s barely worth mentioning, but I did get a little frustrated that Ritchie’s full name was Ritchie Tozer, as this is the same name as Richie Tozier from Stephen King’s IT. Admittedly a different spelling, but it did grate on me a little throughout the episodes as it’s not exactly a common name.
However despite my reservations on character naming, It’s A Sin is a fantastic heartwarming yet sobering drama that can’t be faulted. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen anything so engaging and emotional.
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.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
13 years have passed since Alice first visited Wonderland. She was just a little girl back then. A mad, little girl plagued by a nightmare. Now, almost 20, Alice finds herself thrust headfirst into adulthood yet continues to have the same dream for as long as she can remember. On the verge of being thrown into a marriage she's unsure of, Alice finds herself easily distracted by the simplest things. What would it be like to fly? What if women wore trousers and men wore dresses? Or the fact that wearing a corset is similar to wearing a codfish on your head. The White Rabbit eventually distracts Alice long enough to lead her back down the rabbit hole for a return visit to Wonderland, but Alice is still under the impression that it's all a dream and has no recollection of her first trip there. Since Alice's first visit, however, the Red Queen used the Jabberwocky to relinquish the crown from her sister, the White Queen, and now reigns supreme as the queen of Wonderland. As the creatures of Wonderland debate whether this Alice is the "right Alice" that is destined to kill the Jabberwocky and end the Red Queen's reign, Alice struggles with trying to wake up from this very realistic dream.
As a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, I was seriously looking forward to this. The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, whether you love it or hate it, has resulted in some fairly creative and successful works. At this point in his career, it's fairly easy to spot something that Tim Burton has done. Like most directors, he has a specific style and Burton's seems to revolve around things that are dark, grisly, and bizarre all rolled into one. So how would Burton's wonderfully grotesque style mesh with Lewis Carroll's delightfully imaginative Alice and her trip to Wonderland? To be blunt, beautifully.
The way Burton went about the subject matter is probably the best way to go. It's an original tale with characters that are already well-established and are admired by a mass audience. That thin line often tread in situations like this between homage and plagiarism isn't quite so thin anymore and mainly follows the homage path. Burton's style also sheds new light on Wonderland or casts a larger shadow on it depending on how you look at it. Beheadings are common, the monsters like the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky are gruesome, and the Dormouse has a thing about stabbing creatures in the eye. It's like if Lewis Carroll's vision met a bizarro, cracked out, Grimm's Fairy Tale version of itself.
The bizarre thing is that the secondary characters seem to be more interesting than the primary ones. I found myself drawn to characters like the Dodo Bird, the White Rabbit, the March Hare, the Cheshire Cat, the Executioner, the Red Queen's knights, and the Jabberwocky more than say Alice or the White Queen. That could be due to the fact that I'm drawn to the peculiar and I'm also an aficionado of the ridiculous. However, some characters seemed to be lacking interest (The White Queen) or enthusiasm (Alice) while secondary characters would fill that gap, so it seemed to balance out in the end.
I loved nearly everything about the film ranging from the Red Queen's outlandish reign to Johnny Depp's portrayal of The Mad Hatter to Tim Burton's version of Wonderland itself. Even Crispin Glover's role as the Knave of Hearts was exceptional. There are a few things about the film that didn't sit well with me or that seemed questionable. The addition of Bayard the Bloodhound being one of them. The addition isn't necessarily bad as the character gains sympathy from the audience rather effortlessly, but the character just didn't seem essential to the story like the other characters were. Maybe it's because it's a character Lewis Carroll didn't create. It wound up being something that wasn't good or bad, but leaves you scratching your head a bit. Alice rode Bayard across Wonderland. If you were going to introduce a character into an oddball world, wouldn't something more odd be the answer? Something like an ostrich or a roadrunner? What didn't sit well with me about the film can be summed up with one four syllable word; futterwhacken. What the hell was that? It was like if Regan from The Exorcist decided to start river dancing during a rather serious seizure. The concept wasn't a bad one, but its execution should have been something completely different.
I'm not sure if it was just the theater I was in or what, but it was hard to understand the characters at times. The Mad Hatter and the tea party scene, especially. Every other character was perfectly audible, the music was booming, and the battle scenes were exceptionally loud. The Mad Hatter's mumbling and the March Hare's ramblings are just hard to understand, which is unfortunate as they're two of the things you'll want to hear the most.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is frame-for-frame Burton's ghastly version of the tale everyone knows and loves. While his particular vision may appear to not be for everyone on the surface, if you're a fan of Burton's previous work, Johnny Depp, the original Alice in Wonderland, or even all three, then it's safe to say you're more than likely going to love this adaptation.
As a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, I was seriously looking forward to this. The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, whether you love it or hate it, has resulted in some fairly creative and successful works. At this point in his career, it's fairly easy to spot something that Tim Burton has done. Like most directors, he has a specific style and Burton's seems to revolve around things that are dark, grisly, and bizarre all rolled into one. So how would Burton's wonderfully grotesque style mesh with Lewis Carroll's delightfully imaginative Alice and her trip to Wonderland? To be blunt, beautifully.
The way Burton went about the subject matter is probably the best way to go. It's an original tale with characters that are already well-established and are admired by a mass audience. That thin line often tread in situations like this between homage and plagiarism isn't quite so thin anymore and mainly follows the homage path. Burton's style also sheds new light on Wonderland or casts a larger shadow on it depending on how you look at it. Beheadings are common, the monsters like the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky are gruesome, and the Dormouse has a thing about stabbing creatures in the eye. It's like if Lewis Carroll's vision met a bizarro, cracked out, Grimm's Fairy Tale version of itself.
The bizarre thing is that the secondary characters seem to be more interesting than the primary ones. I found myself drawn to characters like the Dodo Bird, the White Rabbit, the March Hare, the Cheshire Cat, the Executioner, the Red Queen's knights, and the Jabberwocky more than say Alice or the White Queen. That could be due to the fact that I'm drawn to the peculiar and I'm also an aficionado of the ridiculous. However, some characters seemed to be lacking interest (The White Queen) or enthusiasm (Alice) while secondary characters would fill that gap, so it seemed to balance out in the end.
I loved nearly everything about the film ranging from the Red Queen's outlandish reign to Johnny Depp's portrayal of The Mad Hatter to Tim Burton's version of Wonderland itself. Even Crispin Glover's role as the Knave of Hearts was exceptional. There are a few things about the film that didn't sit well with me or that seemed questionable. The addition of Bayard the Bloodhound being one of them. The addition isn't necessarily bad as the character gains sympathy from the audience rather effortlessly, but the character just didn't seem essential to the story like the other characters were. Maybe it's because it's a character Lewis Carroll didn't create. It wound up being something that wasn't good or bad, but leaves you scratching your head a bit. Alice rode Bayard across Wonderland. If you were going to introduce a character into an oddball world, wouldn't something more odd be the answer? Something like an ostrich or a roadrunner? What didn't sit well with me about the film can be summed up with one four syllable word; futterwhacken. What the hell was that? It was like if Regan from The Exorcist decided to start river dancing during a rather serious seizure. The concept wasn't a bad one, but its execution should have been something completely different.
I'm not sure if it was just the theater I was in or what, but it was hard to understand the characters at times. The Mad Hatter and the tea party scene, especially. Every other character was perfectly audible, the music was booming, and the battle scenes were exceptionally loud. The Mad Hatter's mumbling and the March Hare's ramblings are just hard to understand, which is unfortunate as they're two of the things you'll want to hear the most.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is frame-for-frame Burton's ghastly version of the tale everyone knows and loves. While his particular vision may appear to not be for everyone on the surface, if you're a fan of Burton's previous work, Johnny Depp, the original Alice in Wonderland, or even all three, then it's safe to say you're more than likely going to love this adaptation.