Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
More DC than Marvel
Bryan Singer’s return to the X-Men franchise comes at the perfect time both for the series and its director.
After last year’s poorly executed Jack the Giant Slayer, Singer needed to come back to home turf and after a string of irritating X-Men films, including the entertaining but soulless X-Men: The Last Stand and the downright offensive Wolverine origins story, it seems the superhero series needed to do the same.
But can a re-partnering 11 years after the brilliant X2 restore the magic of one of Marvel’s best comics?
Partially is the answer here. Singer restores the cinematic flair and sparkle of the series and brings back a lot of old faces but forgets a lot of the fun in the process.
x-men-days-of-future-past-character-poster-01.jpgDays of Future Past is set in a dystopian future as a war between mutants and humans continues to rage. Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), Magneto (Ian McKellen), Storm (Halle Berry) and many other fan favourites return to the series after being absent for some time. We follow these characters as they try to escape the sentinels; an army of robots impressively rendered in CGI designed to kill any mutant on sight, friend or foe.
The only way to stop the war is to send a mutant back to 1973 when the sentinel program was put in motion. Unfortunately, Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine is the chosen one and remains the lead character throughout the film.
Back in 1973, the mutants from X-Men First Class are blissfully unaware of what lies in store for them, though they still have their own personal battles to deal with.
As the film progresses, it becomes painfully obvious that this is very much a “First Class” era film. James McAvoy’s impressive take on the young Charles Xavier returns, as does Michael Fassbender’s Magneto.
However, only Jennifer Lawrence’s Mystique makes a lasting impact amongst the 1973 era mutants. You can see the pain and torment etched onto her face throughout theJennifer-Lawrence-mystique film and as in The Hunger Games she steals focus from everyone around her. Game of Thrones’ Peter Dinklage also joins the cast as the film’s primary antagonist Bolivar Trask and is a real joy to watch. His character is understated in every way, but he remains an iconic presence throughout.
However, as impressive as the set pieces and acting performances are, it is in the future where we wish to see more. The ‘classic’ characters are barely given any screen time which is a real shame and the real mutant cost of the war is glossed over entirely. The special effects are genuinely very good. Each of the action sequences is well choreographed and the CGI is great, especially the rendering on the future sentinels which can adapt to seek a mutant’s power – no matter what it is.
Unfortunately, the fun factor is completely lost as Singer ramps up the tension and the death toll. In fact, only one character provides the humour and that is Evan Peters’ portrayal of Quicksilver who is only on screen for 15 minutes.
Overall, X-Men: Days of Future Past is definitely the best film of the series and thankfully does away with the atrocities that have been committed previously in the franchise. However, it feels like Singer was trying so hard to repair his predecessor’s mistakes, he forgot some of the key elements of a Marvel superhero film in the process – this is more DC than Marvel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/06/01/x-men-days-of-future-past-review/
After last year’s poorly executed Jack the Giant Slayer, Singer needed to come back to home turf and after a string of irritating X-Men films, including the entertaining but soulless X-Men: The Last Stand and the downright offensive Wolverine origins story, it seems the superhero series needed to do the same.
But can a re-partnering 11 years after the brilliant X2 restore the magic of one of Marvel’s best comics?
Partially is the answer here. Singer restores the cinematic flair and sparkle of the series and brings back a lot of old faces but forgets a lot of the fun in the process.
x-men-days-of-future-past-character-poster-01.jpgDays of Future Past is set in a dystopian future as a war between mutants and humans continues to rage. Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), Magneto (Ian McKellen), Storm (Halle Berry) and many other fan favourites return to the series after being absent for some time. We follow these characters as they try to escape the sentinels; an army of robots impressively rendered in CGI designed to kill any mutant on sight, friend or foe.
The only way to stop the war is to send a mutant back to 1973 when the sentinel program was put in motion. Unfortunately, Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine is the chosen one and remains the lead character throughout the film.
Back in 1973, the mutants from X-Men First Class are blissfully unaware of what lies in store for them, though they still have their own personal battles to deal with.
As the film progresses, it becomes painfully obvious that this is very much a “First Class” era film. James McAvoy’s impressive take on the young Charles Xavier returns, as does Michael Fassbender’s Magneto.
However, only Jennifer Lawrence’s Mystique makes a lasting impact amongst the 1973 era mutants. You can see the pain and torment etched onto her face throughout theJennifer-Lawrence-mystique film and as in The Hunger Games she steals focus from everyone around her. Game of Thrones’ Peter Dinklage also joins the cast as the film’s primary antagonist Bolivar Trask and is a real joy to watch. His character is understated in every way, but he remains an iconic presence throughout.
However, as impressive as the set pieces and acting performances are, it is in the future where we wish to see more. The ‘classic’ characters are barely given any screen time which is a real shame and the real mutant cost of the war is glossed over entirely. The special effects are genuinely very good. Each of the action sequences is well choreographed and the CGI is great, especially the rendering on the future sentinels which can adapt to seek a mutant’s power – no matter what it is.
Unfortunately, the fun factor is completely lost as Singer ramps up the tension and the death toll. In fact, only one character provides the humour and that is Evan Peters’ portrayal of Quicksilver who is only on screen for 15 minutes.
Overall, X-Men: Days of Future Past is definitely the best film of the series and thankfully does away with the atrocities that have been committed previously in the franchise. However, it feels like Singer was trying so hard to repair his predecessor’s mistakes, he forgot some of the key elements of a Marvel superhero film in the process – this is more DC than Marvel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/06/01/x-men-days-of-future-past-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Cats (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
[Nostalgia enters the room looking cheery. A cat lurks in the background. Nostalgia starts tapdancing. Suddenly a red dot appears on Nostalgia's back and the cat savagely attacks it, leaving it bloody and beaten on the ground.]
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The much anticipated second film in Peter Jackson’s Hobbit Trilogy has arrived in time to reap box office gold much the way the previous films based on Tolkien’s works have. The film continues the adventure started in the previous film and finds the band of adventurers chased by a pack of Orcs and faced with the deadly and dark Mirkwood Forest as they attempt to reach The Lonely Mountain in time.
The journey is long and filled with peril as everything from Orcs to giant spiders stand in the way and should the group be successful in reaching their destination, there is the little matter of a giant and very nasty dragon named Smaug to contend with.
Undaunted the group press on despite finding danger a constant companion and once again give us a series staples of endless shots of them walking and walking in locales lifted from the Tourism New Zealand film room in between the amazing visual work that makes up the battle sequence and other-worldly visuals of the film.
Bilbo (Martin Freeman), is becoming more and more under the spell of the ring he obtained in the previous film and Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen), suspects that darker forces are growing and sets off to confirm his suspicions. This divides the film into two quest centric storylines that are sure to cause some division amongst fans of the series.
The film does manage to hold your attention throughout its 2.5 hr plus run time and does have a very enjoyable finale act as the arrival of Smug (Benedict Cumberbatch), for me has been honestly the most enjoyable of any of the four prior films in the series to date. His interactions with Bilbo and the group flesh him out to be more than a creation of CGI, but rather infuse him with a evil and complexity that make him a very compelling and dynamic character.
Despite the strong cast and amazing visual FX in the film that is captured very well by the 3D filming Jackson used, the movie does have it’s share of frustrations.
Jackson has once again loaded the film with tons of characters, scenarios, and padding that easily make up more than half of the film. The idea seems to be to show a greater connection to the original LOTR films and the inclusion of Orlando Bloom as Legolas and Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel is bound to cause controversy. On one hand it was great to see the two characters and the great amounts of action they brought to the film, but the entire time I kept thinking that there was no need for most of this extra stuff as it was included simply to stretch out the film in order to justify a third movie and ensure another big box office.
When the film reaches it’s conclusion it was very clear to me that they could have completed the film in two films had the removed all of the padding and fluff and stuck to the source material. Segments are drawn out or included that really do not need to be there no matter how exciting and visually appealing they may be.
When the film was first announced it was planned to be two films but was later expanded to three when Jackson took over as Director following the departure of Guillermo del Toro. If one film was sufficient to capture each book in the original series than three films for this one book is simply overkill to me and it undermines the source material.
That being said, I did enjoy the film as it works best for me if I look at it as “inspired by’ rather than a cinematic translation of the book and in doing so I was able to get caught up in the action of the film and the character’s.
In the end the film is a true delight filled with plenty of action and adventure and will keep fans old and new entertained as despite the issues I had with it, it was one of the better action/fantasy films of the year and is a great technological achievement.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug/
The journey is long and filled with peril as everything from Orcs to giant spiders stand in the way and should the group be successful in reaching their destination, there is the little matter of a giant and very nasty dragon named Smaug to contend with.
Undaunted the group press on despite finding danger a constant companion and once again give us a series staples of endless shots of them walking and walking in locales lifted from the Tourism New Zealand film room in between the amazing visual work that makes up the battle sequence and other-worldly visuals of the film.
Bilbo (Martin Freeman), is becoming more and more under the spell of the ring he obtained in the previous film and Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen), suspects that darker forces are growing and sets off to confirm his suspicions. This divides the film into two quest centric storylines that are sure to cause some division amongst fans of the series.
The film does manage to hold your attention throughout its 2.5 hr plus run time and does have a very enjoyable finale act as the arrival of Smug (Benedict Cumberbatch), for me has been honestly the most enjoyable of any of the four prior films in the series to date. His interactions with Bilbo and the group flesh him out to be more than a creation of CGI, but rather infuse him with a evil and complexity that make him a very compelling and dynamic character.
Despite the strong cast and amazing visual FX in the film that is captured very well by the 3D filming Jackson used, the movie does have it’s share of frustrations.
Jackson has once again loaded the film with tons of characters, scenarios, and padding that easily make up more than half of the film. The idea seems to be to show a greater connection to the original LOTR films and the inclusion of Orlando Bloom as Legolas and Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel is bound to cause controversy. On one hand it was great to see the two characters and the great amounts of action they brought to the film, but the entire time I kept thinking that there was no need for most of this extra stuff as it was included simply to stretch out the film in order to justify a third movie and ensure another big box office.
When the film reaches it’s conclusion it was very clear to me that they could have completed the film in two films had the removed all of the padding and fluff and stuck to the source material. Segments are drawn out or included that really do not need to be there no matter how exciting and visually appealing they may be.
When the film was first announced it was planned to be two films but was later expanded to three when Jackson took over as Director following the departure of Guillermo del Toro. If one film was sufficient to capture each book in the original series than three films for this one book is simply overkill to me and it undermines the source material.
That being said, I did enjoy the film as it works best for me if I look at it as “inspired by’ rather than a cinematic translation of the book and in doing so I was able to get caught up in the action of the film and the character’s.
In the end the film is a true delight filled with plenty of action and adventure and will keep fans old and new entertained as despite the issues I had with it, it was one of the better action/fantasy films of the year and is a great technological achievement.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug/
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Exorcist (1973) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
Its a scream
This is a guest review for the stage show of The Exorcist not for the movie written by my good friend jappyscraps (on instagram) which I'm very thankful for.
The Exorcist on stage – Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham, 16/10/19
It’s my number one film of all-time so naturally I approached this production with some caution. Any stage adaptations of films have to be stripped down for obvious reasons and with The Exorcist having some key technical moments I was eager to see how they achieved them or even included them at all.
There’s a very clever build-up to the show with a steady drone of religious chanting and indecipherable voices, whispers and moans which stay with you before a massive crack rips through the sound system and the theatre is plunged into total darkness. It’s quite unsettling and there were a lot of nervous giggles and squeaks in the audience. A light appears at the top of the stage set and Father Merrin (played by Paul Nicholas, yes him of 80’s sitcom ‘Just Good Friends’ fame and one-time pop star) appears, speaks a few lines which we couldn’t hear at all and then promptly disappears and the stage lights reveal the MacNeil household below where Chris MacNeil and her daughter Regan. They obviously have a close bond and the next few minutes is spent establishing this and introducing the character of Burke, a film director and friend of actress Chris, who provides some occasional comedy touches. There are scenes of Regan playing with a Ouija board which she discovers in the attic. This is the first introduction of the demon that Regan refers to as Captain Howdy. Unlike the film, we hear the demon speaking in the early stages of Regan’s possession. The demon’s voice is provided by (a pre-recorded) Sir Ian McKellen and his performance is brilliant despite it sounding nothing like Mercedes McCambridge in the original.
At this stage we have lost one of the key characters and if you know the story well you will know who this is. As Reagan’s behaviour deteriorates, we are introduced to various doctors and psychiatrists before a priest friend of Chris suggests she talks to Father Karras, a key character in The Exorcist. When Karras first meets Regan she is in her bed, restrained by straps and speaking in the demon’s voice. Susannah Edgeley as Regan does a magnificent job lip-synching to McKellen’s voice, she does not miss a beat and her performance overall steals the show.
Father Karras is not convinced that an exorcism is the answer but, as we know, events take a turn for the worse and a frail Father Merrin is summoned for a showdown with the demon, which is the show’s dramatic (and loud) finale.
If you are wondering if all of The Exorcist’s key moments are included in the stage show I can confirm that most of them are, even if they don’t appear in the same scenes in the film. So, the crucifix scene is present and correct, though not so bloody and graphic. Regan’s head spin is there, achieved by what you might describe as a Penn & Teller trick but it is surprisingly effective. Regan does vomit during the exorcism but the classic scene of her projectile vomiting over Karras isn’t there, probably a step too far for a stage show. There is no levitation in the exorcism but there is a clever effect where Regan is catapulted forward on the bed, as if pushed forward by the demon. It’s all very impressive stuff.
The Exorcist on stage is very good, fans of the film will enjoy picking up on the original dialogue and dissecting the new lines and plotline. Some characters from the film don’t appear at all, the key one being Lieutenant Kinderman (played by Lee J. Cobb in the film) which I was a little disappointed about. My main issues were with the sound on occasions, particularly not hearing the actors deliver their lines clearly but it was a minor niggle. The character of Burke Dennings is renamed Burke Dennis in the stage show and I have no idea why – I was frankly irritated by it. The performances of Susannah Edgeley and McKellen’s demon more than make up for it though. The stage set is excellent and the lights and sound effects were top notch. I’d recommend it without hesitation, just don’t expect a scene for scene reboot of the film or you will be very disappointed.
The Exorcist on stage – Alexandra Theatre, Birmingham, 16/10/19
It’s my number one film of all-time so naturally I approached this production with some caution. Any stage adaptations of films have to be stripped down for obvious reasons and with The Exorcist having some key technical moments I was eager to see how they achieved them or even included them at all.
There’s a very clever build-up to the show with a steady drone of religious chanting and indecipherable voices, whispers and moans which stay with you before a massive crack rips through the sound system and the theatre is plunged into total darkness. It’s quite unsettling and there were a lot of nervous giggles and squeaks in the audience. A light appears at the top of the stage set and Father Merrin (played by Paul Nicholas, yes him of 80’s sitcom ‘Just Good Friends’ fame and one-time pop star) appears, speaks a few lines which we couldn’t hear at all and then promptly disappears and the stage lights reveal the MacNeil household below where Chris MacNeil and her daughter Regan. They obviously have a close bond and the next few minutes is spent establishing this and introducing the character of Burke, a film director and friend of actress Chris, who provides some occasional comedy touches. There are scenes of Regan playing with a Ouija board which she discovers in the attic. This is the first introduction of the demon that Regan refers to as Captain Howdy. Unlike the film, we hear the demon speaking in the early stages of Regan’s possession. The demon’s voice is provided by (a pre-recorded) Sir Ian McKellen and his performance is brilliant despite it sounding nothing like Mercedes McCambridge in the original.
At this stage we have lost one of the key characters and if you know the story well you will know who this is. As Reagan’s behaviour deteriorates, we are introduced to various doctors and psychiatrists before a priest friend of Chris suggests she talks to Father Karras, a key character in The Exorcist. When Karras first meets Regan she is in her bed, restrained by straps and speaking in the demon’s voice. Susannah Edgeley as Regan does a magnificent job lip-synching to McKellen’s voice, she does not miss a beat and her performance overall steals the show.
Father Karras is not convinced that an exorcism is the answer but, as we know, events take a turn for the worse and a frail Father Merrin is summoned for a showdown with the demon, which is the show’s dramatic (and loud) finale.
If you are wondering if all of The Exorcist’s key moments are included in the stage show I can confirm that most of them are, even if they don’t appear in the same scenes in the film. So, the crucifix scene is present and correct, though not so bloody and graphic. Regan’s head spin is there, achieved by what you might describe as a Penn & Teller trick but it is surprisingly effective. Regan does vomit during the exorcism but the classic scene of her projectile vomiting over Karras isn’t there, probably a step too far for a stage show. There is no levitation in the exorcism but there is a clever effect where Regan is catapulted forward on the bed, as if pushed forward by the demon. It’s all very impressive stuff.
The Exorcist on stage is very good, fans of the film will enjoy picking up on the original dialogue and dissecting the new lines and plotline. Some characters from the film don’t appear at all, the key one being Lieutenant Kinderman (played by Lee J. Cobb in the film) which I was a little disappointed about. My main issues were with the sound on occasions, particularly not hearing the actors deliver their lines clearly but it was a minor niggle. The character of Burke Dennings is renamed Burke Dennis in the stage show and I have no idea why – I was frankly irritated by it. The performances of Susannah Edgeley and McKellen’s demon more than make up for it though. The stage set is excellent and the lights and sound effects were top notch. I’d recommend it without hesitation, just don’t expect a scene for scene reboot of the film or you will be very disappointed.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Following the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was going to be no easy feat. The series not only made incredible amounts of cash at the box office worldwide, but also garnered an Academy award for best picture for the final film in the series. In the years since the trilogy, writer-director-producer Peter Jackson has not overwhelmed at the box office. His big-budget remake of “King Kong” performed below expectations and the high-profile collapse of the “Halo” movie to which he was attached, as well as the underwhelming box office of “The Lovely Bones” made many people question if Jackson had peaked and was better suited for the lower budgeted independent films that first gave him his start.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….