Search
Search results
Leanne Crabtree (480 KP) rated License to Thrill in Books
Jan 12, 2021
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Spider-Man 2 (2004) in Movies
Sep 23, 2020
The second of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films is a shining example of a comic book sequel outshining it's predecessor. Everything is better, the set pieces, the characters, the effects, and the stakes are higher.
Spider-Man 2 owes a lot to Alfred Molina. His performance as Otto Octavius, and later, Doctor Octopus is pure villainous perfection, whilst lending the character a sympathetic undertone. Spider-Man has a fantastic rogues gallery to chooses from, and Doc Ock is one of the more complicated ones. This movie does the character justice.
Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, J.K. Simmons and Rosemary Harris all return from the first film and all cement their positions in movie history as these beloved comic characters.
The effects look a little dated by today's standards, but they're still more than passable, and another great score by Danny Elfman is the cherry on top.
Spider-Man 2 is both a strong sequel, and a strong comic book adaption.
Spider-Man 2 owes a lot to Alfred Molina. His performance as Otto Octavius, and later, Doctor Octopus is pure villainous perfection, whilst lending the character a sympathetic undertone. Spider-Man has a fantastic rogues gallery to chooses from, and Doc Ock is one of the more complicated ones. This movie does the character justice.
Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, J.K. Simmons and Rosemary Harris all return from the first film and all cement their positions in movie history as these beloved comic characters.
The effects look a little dated by today's standards, but they're still more than passable, and another great score by Danny Elfman is the cherry on top.
Spider-Man 2 is both a strong sequel, and a strong comic book adaption.
<i>Many thanks to the publisher for providing me with an ARC copy in exchange for an honest review</i>
What can I say about <i>The Red?</i> I honestly don’t know where to begin.
I went into The Red with an open mind and I came out the other end with it even wider. Someone once wrote that you’re not always the same person who opened the front cover at the end of a book and this is by no means untrue in this case.
The Red is the name of an art gallery owned by Mona Lisa St James who promises her mother on her deathbed that she will do anything to save The Red. The definition of anything in this book is carte blanche. Literally, I’m talking a blank white card that gives the holder carte blanche to do anything he wants.
By he – I mean Malcolm. That’s all he’s known as throughout the book – no last name, no contact details and sparse visits.
Mona has got to the point where she must sell The Red – it and she are highly in debt and have no way of keeping it afloat. Until one night in June when a mysterious stranger appears in the gallery without a sound and offers Mona a way to save the gallery – the offer? She must submit to him for a period of one year; he will treat her like his whore for a year and each time they have an assignation she’s paid in art.
Sounds relatively okay, right?
I forgot to mention that each chapter is styled after a specific piece of art – now I’m not an art connoisseur in anyway shape or form, but I sure have a new appreciation for art now. I’m almost positive that the paintings in this book are supposed to be less erotic than what Tiffany has made them but damn.
Having read Tiffany’s books before, I knew what I was in for to a point, but The Red had a nice subtle paranormal twist to it that was particularly fun to read, it kept me guessing all through out trying to work out what the hell was happening with all the spooky hallucination type events, the weird appearances and the odd feeling Mona gets.
Character-wise I couldn’t have pictured two better characters to be in this book – Malcolm was the perfect dominant while Mona had the submissive down mostly though she did have a little bit of a freak out at some points.
The sexual scenes were written like the author has experienced a lot of it herself or at the very least she knows how to write it so well that she makes us think that she has experienced it herself. The entire book was written astoundingly well with a good strong flow and a good strong plot – unique to be sure, for me at least.
There was a wicked twist at the end of the book – totally unexpected but fitting for the painting the chapter is named after – again I wouldn’t have known what the painting was without some serious googling but each and every chapter was perfectly styled with the relevant painting.
Overall, I really, really liked this book. It’s a definite must read for all fans of Tiffany Reisz and all fans of erotica as well.
What can I say about <i>The Red?</i> I honestly don’t know where to begin.
I went into The Red with an open mind and I came out the other end with it even wider. Someone once wrote that you’re not always the same person who opened the front cover at the end of a book and this is by no means untrue in this case.
The Red is the name of an art gallery owned by Mona Lisa St James who promises her mother on her deathbed that she will do anything to save The Red. The definition of anything in this book is carte blanche. Literally, I’m talking a blank white card that gives the holder carte blanche to do anything he wants.
By he – I mean Malcolm. That’s all he’s known as throughout the book – no last name, no contact details and sparse visits.
Mona has got to the point where she must sell The Red – it and she are highly in debt and have no way of keeping it afloat. Until one night in June when a mysterious stranger appears in the gallery without a sound and offers Mona a way to save the gallery – the offer? She must submit to him for a period of one year; he will treat her like his whore for a year and each time they have an assignation she’s paid in art.
Sounds relatively okay, right?
I forgot to mention that each chapter is styled after a specific piece of art – now I’m not an art connoisseur in anyway shape or form, but I sure have a new appreciation for art now. I’m almost positive that the paintings in this book are supposed to be less erotic than what Tiffany has made them but damn.
Having read Tiffany’s books before, I knew what I was in for to a point, but The Red had a nice subtle paranormal twist to it that was particularly fun to read, it kept me guessing all through out trying to work out what the hell was happening with all the spooky hallucination type events, the weird appearances and the odd feeling Mona gets.
Character-wise I couldn’t have pictured two better characters to be in this book – Malcolm was the perfect dominant while Mona had the submissive down mostly though she did have a little bit of a freak out at some points.
The sexual scenes were written like the author has experienced a lot of it herself or at the very least she knows how to write it so well that she makes us think that she has experienced it herself. The entire book was written astoundingly well with a good strong flow and a good strong plot – unique to be sure, for me at least.
There was a wicked twist at the end of the book – totally unexpected but fitting for the painting the chapter is named after – again I wouldn’t have known what the painting was without some serious googling but each and every chapter was perfectly styled with the relevant painting.
Overall, I really, really liked this book. It’s a definite must read for all fans of Tiffany Reisz and all fans of erotica as well.
Beckie Shelton (40 KP) rated The Red in Books
Feb 8, 2018
Oh, My friggin god !!!! I'm not quite sure where to start with this review, perhaps with a disclaimer that if you have a weak constitution maybe put this book down now as the Red is likely to give you a bleeding heart attack with its dubiously delectable content.
ME!!! well, bring on the coronary because this book man, what a way to go!!
But seriously if you're easily offended or a bit of a novice to the erotica genre, you might want to start your journey with something a little less hard-core, as The Red Is not a novel with romantic lovey-Dovey phrases or lame-ass cliches.
It was so refreshing that it called a spade a spade!!!
no cutesy words, just plain tell it as it is loved that.
This for me was one of the biggest reasons this gets a big smokin thumbs up from me.
and I can honestly say I have never quite read anything like this before, The Red has an almost mythical surreal quality to some of its happenings, with its play on famous works of art and nymphs and minotaurs.
I hadn't had the delight of experiencing Tiffany Reisz's work before so this was a first for me, First but will not be the last time now I have discovered the voice of this unique author.
The Red's Storyline is simple, Mona Lisa St James needs to save her late mother's Art Gallery and she's practically broke.
Enter Malcolm her mysterious saviour who offers to pay Mona in very expensive art in return for carte-blanche when it comes to her body.
whatever he wishes, he gets, once a month for a year, after that he will disappear from her life forever and Mona will have the means to save the gallery.
The tale then takes us through every encounter, each one different, some more depraved than others but each encounter will make you squirm with its lack of modesty and the sheer corruption in Malcolm's every action.
I loved the way the story unfolded and I would say this was more of a delicious debasement than a romance, a debasement that our girl Mona embraced and welcomed wholeheartedly as The Red draws to its inevitable conclusion.
It's quite obvious to the reader that Malcolm has a hidden agenda which becomes more apparent to Mona as the story unfolds
Quite frankly hidden agendas, in my opinion, are all well and good but honestly, I was just counting the seconds to Mona and Malcolm's next session Take 1, Take 2 Take 3 could go on and on here sigh.
Well anyway, I really enjoyed The Red and would happily recommend it to my fellow perverts all that's left is for me to profusely thank the publisher and NetGalley for allowing me to read an advanced reader copy of this novel by Tiffany Reisz, this is an unbiased reflection of said novel.
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
ME!!! well, bring on the coronary because this book man, what a way to go!!
But seriously if you're easily offended or a bit of a novice to the erotica genre, you might want to start your journey with something a little less hard-core, as The Red Is not a novel with romantic lovey-Dovey phrases or lame-ass cliches.
It was so refreshing that it called a spade a spade!!!
no cutesy words, just plain tell it as it is loved that.
This for me was one of the biggest reasons this gets a big smokin thumbs up from me.
and I can honestly say I have never quite read anything like this before, The Red has an almost mythical surreal quality to some of its happenings, with its play on famous works of art and nymphs and minotaurs.
I hadn't had the delight of experiencing Tiffany Reisz's work before so this was a first for me, First but will not be the last time now I have discovered the voice of this unique author.
The Red's Storyline is simple, Mona Lisa St James needs to save her late mother's Art Gallery and she's practically broke.
Enter Malcolm her mysterious saviour who offers to pay Mona in very expensive art in return for carte-blanche when it comes to her body.
whatever he wishes, he gets, once a month for a year, after that he will disappear from her life forever and Mona will have the means to save the gallery.
The tale then takes us through every encounter, each one different, some more depraved than others but each encounter will make you squirm with its lack of modesty and the sheer corruption in Malcolm's every action.
I loved the way the story unfolded and I would say this was more of a delicious debasement than a romance, a debasement that our girl Mona embraced and welcomed wholeheartedly as The Red draws to its inevitable conclusion.
It's quite obvious to the reader that Malcolm has a hidden agenda which becomes more apparent to Mona as the story unfolds
Quite frankly hidden agendas, in my opinion, are all well and good but honestly, I was just counting the seconds to Mona and Malcolm's next session Take 1, Take 2 Take 3 could go on and on here sigh.
Well anyway, I really enjoyed The Red and would happily recommend it to my fellow perverts all that's left is for me to profusely thank the publisher and NetGalley for allowing me to read an advanced reader copy of this novel by Tiffany Reisz, this is an unbiased reflection of said novel.
https://www.beckiebookworm.com/
https://www.facebook.com/beckiebookworm/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Mar 12, 2022
Too Long Of a Setup for a Terrific Payoff
The rap on the films of the DCEU - especially the films directed by Zach Snyder - is that they are too dark, dour and a “downer”, with very little joy or sunshine in the images or themes.
The Writer and Director of the new DCEU film, THE BATMAN, Matt Reeves (CLOVERFIELD) has one simple answer for you: “Hold my beer”.
Doubling down on the dark themes, imagery and attitudes of all involved, THE BATMAN is a 3 hour epic that is unrelenting in it’s bleakness with constant rain and dark images with not a peak of sun or color in the entire film. This bleakness and the slowness of the first 5/6 of this film will turn off the average viewer and will thrill only the most diehard of fans.
And that’s too bad for the last 1/2 hour of this film is pretty terrific, paying off the long setup beforehand with a confrontation between Batman (Robert Pattinson) and The Riddler (Paul Dano) that rivals just about any confrontation scene in comic books movie history (this side of Heath Ledger’s Joker).
Let’s start with the overwhelming look and feel of this film. It is a downer. Gotham City is, yet again, a city in decay with the bad guys over-running the good guys. Which begs this question - why would anyone join the Gotham City Police Department? But Director/Writer Reeves is is sure-handed in his approach to this material and he is unwavering in his bleakness. It is a strongly directed film that knows what it wants to be and does not pretend to be anything else - nor does it apologize for being what it is.
In this world is dropped Robert Pattinson (the TWILIGHT films) as the titular Batman and he is a perfect choice for this role in this film. His Batman is morose, dour, thoughtful and razor focused on being “vengeance”. He is not interested in being a good guy or a superhero, rather this version of Batman is focused on being a really good Detective, ferreting out evil-doers and administering punishment when they are caught. This film barely mentions Batman’s alter-ego, Bruce Wayne, and when Pattinson is on the screen in the guise as Bruce Wayne he looks uninterested in being Bruce Wayne, he’d rather be Batman - and this is a compliment for that is how this movie portrays this dual role. Batman is disguising himself as Bruce Wayne (and not vica-versa).
Assisting Batman in his Detective work is Lt. James Gordon (the always terrific Jeffrey Wright), the only honest cop in a corrupt Police Department. These 2 work as a Detective team, and this film often-times feels like a Detective procedural, some liken it to SEVEN with Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman, I look at it more like the first season of TRUE DETECTIVE(the one with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson), dark and interesting in their search for the bad guys.
As is typical of these types of films, we have a rogues gallery of villains. Some fair well - an unrecognizable Colin Farrel as Oz (the Penguin) and John Torturro as mob boss Carmine Falcone. While others fair less well - Peter Sarsgaard as corrupt District Attorney Gil Colson and, unfortunately, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Both of these roles are not fleshed out well. Kravitz hits the screen looking good in her cat suit and while there is unmistakable sexual chemistry between Catwoman and Batman (not, it should be noted, between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne), but this only takes the character so far and Selina really wasn’t the bad-ass conflicted villain/hero that one would expect.
A pleasant surprise was the performance of the always interesting Paul Dano as the Riddler. He underplays this character in much the same way that most have overplayed him. Clearly, this is a smart, if mentally off, person who talks through riddles but has an overall plan to bring down “The Bat’ and the City. Not to spoil this film, but it didn’t really grab my attention until after the masked Riddler was unmasked and that was very late in the game - almost too late.
And that’s the problem with this film. The last 1/2 hour is TERRIFIC, but one has to sit through 2 1/2 hours of dark, dour setup to get there and for most, that journey will not be worth the payoff.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The Writer and Director of the new DCEU film, THE BATMAN, Matt Reeves (CLOVERFIELD) has one simple answer for you: “Hold my beer”.
Doubling down on the dark themes, imagery and attitudes of all involved, THE BATMAN is a 3 hour epic that is unrelenting in it’s bleakness with constant rain and dark images with not a peak of sun or color in the entire film. This bleakness and the slowness of the first 5/6 of this film will turn off the average viewer and will thrill only the most diehard of fans.
And that’s too bad for the last 1/2 hour of this film is pretty terrific, paying off the long setup beforehand with a confrontation between Batman (Robert Pattinson) and The Riddler (Paul Dano) that rivals just about any confrontation scene in comic books movie history (this side of Heath Ledger’s Joker).
Let’s start with the overwhelming look and feel of this film. It is a downer. Gotham City is, yet again, a city in decay with the bad guys over-running the good guys. Which begs this question - why would anyone join the Gotham City Police Department? But Director/Writer Reeves is is sure-handed in his approach to this material and he is unwavering in his bleakness. It is a strongly directed film that knows what it wants to be and does not pretend to be anything else - nor does it apologize for being what it is.
In this world is dropped Robert Pattinson (the TWILIGHT films) as the titular Batman and he is a perfect choice for this role in this film. His Batman is morose, dour, thoughtful and razor focused on being “vengeance”. He is not interested in being a good guy or a superhero, rather this version of Batman is focused on being a really good Detective, ferreting out evil-doers and administering punishment when they are caught. This film barely mentions Batman’s alter-ego, Bruce Wayne, and when Pattinson is on the screen in the guise as Bruce Wayne he looks uninterested in being Bruce Wayne, he’d rather be Batman - and this is a compliment for that is how this movie portrays this dual role. Batman is disguising himself as Bruce Wayne (and not vica-versa).
Assisting Batman in his Detective work is Lt. James Gordon (the always terrific Jeffrey Wright), the only honest cop in a corrupt Police Department. These 2 work as a Detective team, and this film often-times feels like a Detective procedural, some liken it to SEVEN with Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman, I look at it more like the first season of TRUE DETECTIVE(the one with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson), dark and interesting in their search for the bad guys.
As is typical of these types of films, we have a rogues gallery of villains. Some fair well - an unrecognizable Colin Farrel as Oz (the Penguin) and John Torturro as mob boss Carmine Falcone. While others fair less well - Peter Sarsgaard as corrupt District Attorney Gil Colson and, unfortunately, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Both of these roles are not fleshed out well. Kravitz hits the screen looking good in her cat suit and while there is unmistakable sexual chemistry between Catwoman and Batman (not, it should be noted, between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne), but this only takes the character so far and Selina really wasn’t the bad-ass conflicted villain/hero that one would expect.
A pleasant surprise was the performance of the always interesting Paul Dano as the Riddler. He underplays this character in much the same way that most have overplayed him. Clearly, this is a smart, if mentally off, person who talks through riddles but has an overall plan to bring down “The Bat’ and the City. Not to spoil this film, but it didn’t really grab my attention until after the masked Riddler was unmasked and that was very late in the game - almost too late.
And that’s the problem with this film. The last 1/2 hour is TERRIFIC, but one has to sit through 2 1/2 hours of dark, dour setup to get there and for most, that journey will not be worth the payoff.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!