Search
Search results
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019 (Updated Feb 25, 2019)
Groundbreaker mired in slop
Contains spoilers, click to show
Regarded as one of the best war films ever made, it certainly qualifies. The opening twenty minutes are still as breathtaking, shocking and disturbing realistic as they were back in 1998. It is hard to imagine that it has now been over twelve years since Saving Private Ryan broke the mold of World War II film making.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Goodbye Normal Jean
It would be easy to write off X-Men: Dark Phoenix as a complete and utter disaster. With the departure of Bryan Singer (again) from the franchise, first-time director Simon Kinberg taking his place and rumours of costly reshoots pushing the budget north of $200million, things weren’t looking good for this adaptation of the popular Marvel comic.
Let’s not forget that the last time Fox tried to adapt this storyline we ended up with 2006’s The Last Stand, and the less said about that the better. Looking back over the last 20 years, the X-Men’s film franchise history has been chequered to say the least.
Nevertheless, this particular timeline that started with Matthew Vaughn’s adequate First Class, followed up by the excellent Days of Future Past and the flabby Apocalypse ends with Dark Phoenix. But is it worthy of your consideration?
This is the story of one of the X-Men’s most beloved characters, Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), as she evolves into the iconic Phoenix. During a rescue mission in space, Jean is hit by a cosmic force that transforms her into one of the most powerful mutants of all. Wrestling with this increasingly unstable power as well as her own personal demons, Jean spirals out of control, tearing the X-Men family apart and threatening to destroy the very fabric of our planet.
First things first – this is not a bad film. Yes, you heard me right. Leagues above Apocalypse and much better than The Last Stand, Dark Phoenix is a film that has been let down by catastrophically poor marketing. It’s not perfect, as we’ll discover in this review, but it tries a different approach, and for that it should be applauded.
For this reviewer, the modern day cast of characters has always been a weak spot for the series and that doesn’t really change in Dark Phoenix. James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier, especially since packing on the muscle for this Glass, but he performs much better here than he did in its predecessor. His transition into egotistical maniac, obsessed by the celebrity status the X-Men have acquired at the outset of the film is an intriguing diversion from where he was at the end of Apocalypse.
The younger cast are more likeable. Kodi Smitt-McPhee’s portrayal of Nightcrawler is fabulous and he gets more to do this time around. Tye Sheridan is great as young Cyclops and Evan Peters’ Quicksilver remains a highlight, though it’s unfortunate he’s cast aside relatively quickly – for fans of his set pieces from the previous two films, you’ll be disappointed here. Michael Fassbender and Nicholas Hoult bring their a-games, but they even seem a little bored by what’s going on. “You’re always sorry, Charles. And there’s always a speech. But nobody cares anymore!” bites Michael Fassbender at one point in the film – perhaps he’s onto something?
The first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past
Of the female cast, Sophie Turner does her best with the material she’s given, and her Jean Grey is full of anger, angst and melancholy. The script struggles to provide her with any other emotion, but she’s a pleasing protagonist for the most part. Unfortunately, Jennifer Lawrence completely phones in her performance as Mystique and Jessica Chastain’s horrifically underwritten villain wastes a fabulous actor in a thankless role – much like Oscar Issac in Apocalypse.
With reports of heavy reshoots, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the film would end up a royal mess. Thankfully, the first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past. Focusing on character development rather than all-out action, it’s a pleasing change and one which is more than welcome. Unfortunately, as time ticks away, the film loses all semblance of sanity and becomes muddled as it steamrolls towards an underwhelming climax.
And despite the reported budget of $200million, some of the shot choices and outfits feel cheap. It’s clear director Simon Kinberg is a fan of the series, but the X-Men costumes are bland, ill-fitting and a world away from what we’ve seen before. Closer to the comics they may be, but that’s not always a good thing. Elsewhere, the film feels cut-rate, almost TV-movie like and that’s a real shame because the special effects are top-notch. Mercifully, Hans Zimmer’s score is wonderful. The soaring orchestral soundtrack works brilliantly with the film – it’s probably the best music in the series to date.
Overall, X-Men: Dark Phoenix has been a victim of poor marketing with trailers that spoilt perhaps the most pivotal moment of the film (which we won’t spoil here). Nevertheless, the first hour is great and the special effects provide the film with some thrilling set pieces. It’s a shame then that the film offers up nothing new to the table despite some committed performances – this Phoenix just doesn’t quite rise to the occasion.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/06/07/x-men-dark-phoenix-review-goodbye-normal-jean/
Let’s not forget that the last time Fox tried to adapt this storyline we ended up with 2006’s The Last Stand, and the less said about that the better. Looking back over the last 20 years, the X-Men’s film franchise history has been chequered to say the least.
Nevertheless, this particular timeline that started with Matthew Vaughn’s adequate First Class, followed up by the excellent Days of Future Past and the flabby Apocalypse ends with Dark Phoenix. But is it worthy of your consideration?
This is the story of one of the X-Men’s most beloved characters, Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), as she evolves into the iconic Phoenix. During a rescue mission in space, Jean is hit by a cosmic force that transforms her into one of the most powerful mutants of all. Wrestling with this increasingly unstable power as well as her own personal demons, Jean spirals out of control, tearing the X-Men family apart and threatening to destroy the very fabric of our planet.
First things first – this is not a bad film. Yes, you heard me right. Leagues above Apocalypse and much better than The Last Stand, Dark Phoenix is a film that has been let down by catastrophically poor marketing. It’s not perfect, as we’ll discover in this review, but it tries a different approach, and for that it should be applauded.
For this reviewer, the modern day cast of characters has always been a weak spot for the series and that doesn’t really change in Dark Phoenix. James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier, especially since packing on the muscle for this Glass, but he performs much better here than he did in its predecessor. His transition into egotistical maniac, obsessed by the celebrity status the X-Men have acquired at the outset of the film is an intriguing diversion from where he was at the end of Apocalypse.
The younger cast are more likeable. Kodi Smitt-McPhee’s portrayal of Nightcrawler is fabulous and he gets more to do this time around. Tye Sheridan is great as young Cyclops and Evan Peters’ Quicksilver remains a highlight, though it’s unfortunate he’s cast aside relatively quickly – for fans of his set pieces from the previous two films, you’ll be disappointed here. Michael Fassbender and Nicholas Hoult bring their a-games, but they even seem a little bored by what’s going on. “You’re always sorry, Charles. And there’s always a speech. But nobody cares anymore!” bites Michael Fassbender at one point in the film – perhaps he’s onto something?
The first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past
Of the female cast, Sophie Turner does her best with the material she’s given, and her Jean Grey is full of anger, angst and melancholy. The script struggles to provide her with any other emotion, but she’s a pleasing protagonist for the most part. Unfortunately, Jennifer Lawrence completely phones in her performance as Mystique and Jessica Chastain’s horrifically underwritten villain wastes a fabulous actor in a thankless role – much like Oscar Issac in Apocalypse.
With reports of heavy reshoots, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the film would end up a royal mess. Thankfully, the first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past. Focusing on character development rather than all-out action, it’s a pleasing change and one which is more than welcome. Unfortunately, as time ticks away, the film loses all semblance of sanity and becomes muddled as it steamrolls towards an underwhelming climax.
And despite the reported budget of $200million, some of the shot choices and outfits feel cheap. It’s clear director Simon Kinberg is a fan of the series, but the X-Men costumes are bland, ill-fitting and a world away from what we’ve seen before. Closer to the comics they may be, but that’s not always a good thing. Elsewhere, the film feels cut-rate, almost TV-movie like and that’s a real shame because the special effects are top-notch. Mercifully, Hans Zimmer’s score is wonderful. The soaring orchestral soundtrack works brilliantly with the film – it’s probably the best music in the series to date.
Overall, X-Men: Dark Phoenix has been a victim of poor marketing with trailers that spoilt perhaps the most pivotal moment of the film (which we won’t spoil here). Nevertheless, the first hour is great and the special effects provide the film with some thrilling set pieces. It’s a shame then that the film offers up nothing new to the table despite some committed performances – this Phoenix just doesn’t quite rise to the occasion.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/06/07/x-men-dark-phoenix-review-goodbye-normal-jean/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated I, Robot (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Tales of a dark and foreboding future where technology has run amuck have been cautioning viewers ever since Orwell made the phrase “Big Brother” a household expression. Other films such as ?”, “Westworld”, “Blade Runner” and “The Terminator” often show a dark and dangerous future where dependence upon technology created to serve mankind has lead to its eventual downfall.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Natalie Reyes - a kick-ass non-white female hero (1 more)
Arnie's drapes
Linda Hamilton - acting didn't work for me (1 more)
Confusing storyline (as a continuation of T2)
Enjoyable Hokum
Natalia Reyes plays young Mexican Dani Ramos. Out of the blue she faces danger and tragedy when a ‘Rev 9’ Terminator (Gabriel Luna) zaps itself back in time to Mexico City to dispose of her. But, as in “Terminator 2: Judgement Day”, a protector is on hand. This time it’s in the ripped form of ‘enhanced’ human Grace (Mackenzie Davis). She’s there to protect Dani and maintain whatever key to the future that she holds.
Dani is assisted by Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), a vigilante Terminator-fighter wanted in all 50 US States for wanton destruction of property. But even this dynamic duo are no match for the unstoppable force of the Rev 9. So they must turn to an old nemesis from Sarah’s past for assistance.
James Cameron is heavily involved with this one. The decision was made to ‘reboot’ the series as if all the dodgy Terminator movies of the intervening years (after #2) had never happened. (That’s not to say that *I* necessarily found them all dodgy. I quite liked “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” for example, with it’s grim and downbeat ending).
Now I went into this flick understanding that premise. So a flashback scene in the first few minutes of the film left me mightily confused. How on earth did this link to the ‘thumbs up’ scene at the end of “Terminator 2”? #baffled.
But if you ignore this issue, the film settles into what I thought was a nice “Logan“-style modus operandi. There’s an exciting chase sequence along a Mexican highway, but it never overwhelmed the ongoing development of character and motive.
Unfortunately, this didn’t last. Overall, the script lacked momentum, showing a general lack of narrative drive. This is the result, I suspect, of the familiar malaise of ‘team-input’. There are a total of SIX writers contributing to the story and/or screenplay. For example, an opportunity to take a poke at Trump’s Mexican wall isn’t taken; neither are scenes in the topically newsworthy detention centre. It’s as if the “better not: we’ll upset people” button was pressed in either the writing room or by the studio.
Trying to make up for this wallowing second reel, the movie – on boarding a military transport plane – goes to extremes of unbelievable action, both in the sky and below the water. That “Logan-esque” start seems a long way away now.
There’s another element of the movie that confused the hell out of me. The ‘Rev 9’ is able to jump out of it’s “skeleton” which could then pursue actions on its own. Given the Terminator gets FLATTENED – skeleton and all – during certain scenes of the film, this makes little sense unless the skeleton is made of the same ‘liquid metal’ as the body. In which case, why not just have liquid metal that can assume multiple different forms and attack the target from all sides? Perhaps that came in with the “Rev 10”!
But it’s not as bad as I’ve made it sound. This is in no way a terrible movie. As a ‘brain at the door’ piece of sci-fi hocum I really quite enjoyed it. The cast in particular is nicely of our time. There’s a Colombian (not Mexican), feisty and successful female lead in the form of the relatively unknown Reyes. And she has two strong female characters in support. Arnie Schwarzenegger has top billing, but his is really a supporting role.
Natalia Reyes I thought was particularly impressive. The girl has real screen presence, and I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Mackenzie Davis is also terrific as the kick-ass cyborg. I particularly liked the way she executed a neat plot device. Grace has a ‘war-machine’ design… she’s designed for incredible bursts of activity over short periods, but then becomes next to useless as her body crashes and needs ‘rebooting’.
I don’t want to be mean, but there’s probably a reason Linda Hamilton hasn’t been in more mainstream movies since T2. Her acting here is adequate at best and didn’t really cut it for me. The script has delivered her a number of humorous lines – including the iconic “I’ll be back’ – but none of them really land in the delivery.
Instead , it’s Arnie who has the best lines in the movie, delivered with dead-pan wit. His “cover” identity – and particularly his chosen profession – deliver some laugh out loud dialogue.
All in all, I found this a big step up on other Terminator films in the series. The director is Tim Miller, he of “Deadpool“. It’s not bloody Shakespeare, but I found it – warts and all – an enjoyable night out at the movies.
For the full graphical review, check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/10/one-manns-movies-film-review-terminator-dark-fate-2019/
Dani is assisted by Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), a vigilante Terminator-fighter wanted in all 50 US States for wanton destruction of property. But even this dynamic duo are no match for the unstoppable force of the Rev 9. So they must turn to an old nemesis from Sarah’s past for assistance.
James Cameron is heavily involved with this one. The decision was made to ‘reboot’ the series as if all the dodgy Terminator movies of the intervening years (after #2) had never happened. (That’s not to say that *I* necessarily found them all dodgy. I quite liked “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” for example, with it’s grim and downbeat ending).
Now I went into this flick understanding that premise. So a flashback scene in the first few minutes of the film left me mightily confused. How on earth did this link to the ‘thumbs up’ scene at the end of “Terminator 2”? #baffled.
But if you ignore this issue, the film settles into what I thought was a nice “Logan“-style modus operandi. There’s an exciting chase sequence along a Mexican highway, but it never overwhelmed the ongoing development of character and motive.
Unfortunately, this didn’t last. Overall, the script lacked momentum, showing a general lack of narrative drive. This is the result, I suspect, of the familiar malaise of ‘team-input’. There are a total of SIX writers contributing to the story and/or screenplay. For example, an opportunity to take a poke at Trump’s Mexican wall isn’t taken; neither are scenes in the topically newsworthy detention centre. It’s as if the “better not: we’ll upset people” button was pressed in either the writing room or by the studio.
Trying to make up for this wallowing second reel, the movie – on boarding a military transport plane – goes to extremes of unbelievable action, both in the sky and below the water. That “Logan-esque” start seems a long way away now.
There’s another element of the movie that confused the hell out of me. The ‘Rev 9’ is able to jump out of it’s “skeleton” which could then pursue actions on its own. Given the Terminator gets FLATTENED – skeleton and all – during certain scenes of the film, this makes little sense unless the skeleton is made of the same ‘liquid metal’ as the body. In which case, why not just have liquid metal that can assume multiple different forms and attack the target from all sides? Perhaps that came in with the “Rev 10”!
But it’s not as bad as I’ve made it sound. This is in no way a terrible movie. As a ‘brain at the door’ piece of sci-fi hocum I really quite enjoyed it. The cast in particular is nicely of our time. There’s a Colombian (not Mexican), feisty and successful female lead in the form of the relatively unknown Reyes. And she has two strong female characters in support. Arnie Schwarzenegger has top billing, but his is really a supporting role.
Natalia Reyes I thought was particularly impressive. The girl has real screen presence, and I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Mackenzie Davis is also terrific as the kick-ass cyborg. I particularly liked the way she executed a neat plot device. Grace has a ‘war-machine’ design… she’s designed for incredible bursts of activity over short periods, but then becomes next to useless as her body crashes and needs ‘rebooting’.
I don’t want to be mean, but there’s probably a reason Linda Hamilton hasn’t been in more mainstream movies since T2. Her acting here is adequate at best and didn’t really cut it for me. The script has delivered her a number of humorous lines – including the iconic “I’ll be back’ – but none of them really land in the delivery.
Instead , it’s Arnie who has the best lines in the movie, delivered with dead-pan wit. His “cover” identity – and particularly his chosen profession – deliver some laugh out loud dialogue.
All in all, I found this a big step up on other Terminator films in the series. The director is Tim Miller, he of “Deadpool“. It’s not bloody Shakespeare, but I found it – warts and all – an enjoyable night out at the movies.
For the full graphical review, check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/10/one-manns-movies-film-review-terminator-dark-fate-2019/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Gunman (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have an action film on deck for you and ‘no’ it doesn’t star Matt Damon or Jason Statham. This latest film ‘The Gunman’ stars none other than Sean Penn?! Yes, Sean Penn has decided to step into the action genre in his latest film.
Starring Sean Penn, Javier Bardem, Idris Elba, Jasmine Trinca, Ray Winstone, Peter Franzén, Mark Rylance, and based upon the 1981 book ‘The Prone Gunman’ by Jean-Patrick Manchette
‘The Gunman’ is set in the chaos that is modern Africa where civil unrest and war are day-to-day occurrences and western countries and multi-national conglomerates fight for control of the continent’s vital resources. Within this backdrop we find the character of Jim “Twink” Terrier (Penn). A corporate mercenary AKA security contractor on his last ‘assignment’ forced to leave
behind the woman he loves after going into hiding once his final assignment is complete. Now, years later after he has returned in secret to Africa he is forced go on the hunt again after nearly being killed and confront his former boss Felix (Bardem) who may or may not hold the key to finding those responsible. As in the world of espionage however, no one can be trusted. With corporate interests, international law enforcement, and his deteriorating health Terrier is racing against the clock to ensure that the world knows the whole story and perhaps find his long lost love before it’s too late.
Penn is obviously known for his dramatic roles. To say he is ‘legendary’ is pretty accurate.
After seeing this movie, I think it’s safe to say it’s likely we could see him in more action movies. The movie was a bit rough around the edges and perhaps 15 to 20 minutes longer than it needed to be. I felt like Bardem’s presence in the film was ‘wasted’. His character was quiet, spoke very little, and when they did give the character significant time in front of the camera he was drunk for most of it. Bardem has become legendary in his own right and I was hoping for a lot more for his character. The movie was NOT terrible though. One thing that impressed me was the fact that the filmmakers and the writers had the ‘guts’ to include mention of the type of thing that’s going on in Africa right now with corporations fighting for the continents resources and using the civil unrest to their advantage as part of the storyline.
All in all, I’d give the film 3 out of 5 stars. Catch the matinee or order it online. It’s not much when you compare it to something from the ‘Bourne’ or ‘Bond’ franchises. What you see in ‘The Gunman’ is the kind of action film that’s not outside the realm of possibility in real life.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ this is ‘The CameraMan’ saying thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies.
Second Review by Jennifer Fiduccia
The Gunman, stars Sean Penn as James Terrier, Javier Bardem as Felix, Idris Elba as Barnes, Ray Winstone as Stanley, Mark Rylance as Cox and Jasmine Trinca as Annie.
The movie starts out by showing the men all working together as guards for a humanitarian effort in Congo but we are quickly led to believe that they might also be ‘up to something’
Annie is Jims’ fiancé, but it is overly obvious that Felix is jealous and wishes she were his.
Our beliefs become justified when we see the group of guys get orders to assassinate the Minister of Mining, and its a sort of blind draw as to who has to do the actual shooting. Whoever gets picked must then leave the country. It is revealed that that is how Felix wants it to be.
Terrier draws the short straw so to speak, and must carry out the assassination, and then flee the country.
The movie then skips ahead to 8 years later, and sees Jim once again helping a humanitarian effort in Africa, digging wells.
As he works, his group is suddenly attacked by a group of mercenaries, and Jim manages to fight them off and kill them.
He then begins to hunt down his old team mates in an attempt to try and figure out who tried to kill him and why.
The action in the movie is good, and fast paced, the stunts were well done. None of the stunts seemed ‘unbelievable’ given the circumstances they were put in.
The relationships between the characters could have been better fleshed out, and I was confused most of the way through the movie as to who was after Jim and why, but I guess that was intended in the plot.
Overall, if you are looking for a decent action film with a bunch of shooting and car chases, this will fit the bill.
I’d give the movie 3 out of 5 stars, specifically in the category of ‘action films’.
Starring Sean Penn, Javier Bardem, Idris Elba, Jasmine Trinca, Ray Winstone, Peter Franzén, Mark Rylance, and based upon the 1981 book ‘The Prone Gunman’ by Jean-Patrick Manchette
‘The Gunman’ is set in the chaos that is modern Africa where civil unrest and war are day-to-day occurrences and western countries and multi-national conglomerates fight for control of the continent’s vital resources. Within this backdrop we find the character of Jim “Twink” Terrier (Penn). A corporate mercenary AKA security contractor on his last ‘assignment’ forced to leave
behind the woman he loves after going into hiding once his final assignment is complete. Now, years later after he has returned in secret to Africa he is forced go on the hunt again after nearly being killed and confront his former boss Felix (Bardem) who may or may not hold the key to finding those responsible. As in the world of espionage however, no one can be trusted. With corporate interests, international law enforcement, and his deteriorating health Terrier is racing against the clock to ensure that the world knows the whole story and perhaps find his long lost love before it’s too late.
Penn is obviously known for his dramatic roles. To say he is ‘legendary’ is pretty accurate.
After seeing this movie, I think it’s safe to say it’s likely we could see him in more action movies. The movie was a bit rough around the edges and perhaps 15 to 20 minutes longer than it needed to be. I felt like Bardem’s presence in the film was ‘wasted’. His character was quiet, spoke very little, and when they did give the character significant time in front of the camera he was drunk for most of it. Bardem has become legendary in his own right and I was hoping for a lot more for his character. The movie was NOT terrible though. One thing that impressed me was the fact that the filmmakers and the writers had the ‘guts’ to include mention of the type of thing that’s going on in Africa right now with corporations fighting for the continents resources and using the civil unrest to their advantage as part of the storyline.
All in all, I’d give the film 3 out of 5 stars. Catch the matinee or order it online. It’s not much when you compare it to something from the ‘Bourne’ or ‘Bond’ franchises. What you see in ‘The Gunman’ is the kind of action film that’s not outside the realm of possibility in real life.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ this is ‘The CameraMan’ saying thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies.
Second Review by Jennifer Fiduccia
The Gunman, stars Sean Penn as James Terrier, Javier Bardem as Felix, Idris Elba as Barnes, Ray Winstone as Stanley, Mark Rylance as Cox and Jasmine Trinca as Annie.
The movie starts out by showing the men all working together as guards for a humanitarian effort in Congo but we are quickly led to believe that they might also be ‘up to something’
Annie is Jims’ fiancé, but it is overly obvious that Felix is jealous and wishes she were his.
Our beliefs become justified when we see the group of guys get orders to assassinate the Minister of Mining, and its a sort of blind draw as to who has to do the actual shooting. Whoever gets picked must then leave the country. It is revealed that that is how Felix wants it to be.
Terrier draws the short straw so to speak, and must carry out the assassination, and then flee the country.
The movie then skips ahead to 8 years later, and sees Jim once again helping a humanitarian effort in Africa, digging wells.
As he works, his group is suddenly attacked by a group of mercenaries, and Jim manages to fight them off and kill them.
He then begins to hunt down his old team mates in an attempt to try and figure out who tried to kill him and why.
The action in the movie is good, and fast paced, the stunts were well done. None of the stunts seemed ‘unbelievable’ given the circumstances they were put in.
The relationships between the characters could have been better fleshed out, and I was confused most of the way through the movie as to who was after Jim and why, but I guess that was intended in the plot.
Overall, if you are looking for a decent action film with a bunch of shooting and car chases, this will fit the bill.
I’d give the movie 3 out of 5 stars, specifically in the category of ‘action films’.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
This IS the Greatest Show!
I sometimes wonder how “proper” UK film critics view films early for review. Is there a ‘special screening’ which all the film critics attend in London? The point I’m getting at is whether the collective critical opinion of a movie can be swayed by a critic leaping to their feet and wildly applauding a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” or, alternatively, snorting in derision at a film like “The Greatest Showman”. For sometimes the critics seem to get it massively wrong across the board, panning a film that the general public will adore. Unfortunately, this has the effect of putting the general public off seeing it, especially in the lethargic post-Christmas period. I think here is a case in point. It’s not the best little film in the world, but as a musical crowd-pleaser it delivers in spades.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman has always seemed to make great viewing and with the darker takes on him of the past to decades, great movies. This was a real treat though. It’s almost a rational take on an irrational super hero. Christopher Nolan has managed to give Batman a human face and the world he inhabits a sense of scale and realism. But that’s not to say that it is lacking in the sense of the theatrical.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Pandorum (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
A man wakes up in a sleeping chamber of some kind aboard a ship trudging its way through outer space. He has no recollection of who he is, what his mission is, or how long he's been on this vessel. After being awake for an hour, his memory begins to come back to him. He knows his name is Bower and he has a wife who may be on the ship somewhere. That's about the time the power surges begin and Lieutenant Payton wakes up. After realizing that they can't do much without having full power, Bower ventures off on his own to see if he can figure out what's causing these power surges and if anymore of the crew is awake. Bower doesn't get too far before he figures out two things: the first being that he only has about forty five minutes until the reactor goes into emergency shut down unless he can reach it in time from the other side of the ship. The second is that there's something else on board and whatever it is isn't human.
I had wanted to see this film ever since it first hit theaters since it had been a few years since the last sci-fi horror film I really enjoyed and I was really craving one. I missed it during its initial run though since it didn't perform so well at the box office (only a little over $10 million to date) and the response from moviegoers seemed a bit mixed (7.2 on IMDb, 27% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes). I had my doubts about the film since I knew Paul W.S. Anderson was involved and I've been rather disappointed with the majority of his films. Even though he was only a producer this time around, I knew his influence would still be on the project and it certainly was. So how did Pandorum stack up against the rest of Anderson's filmography? Probably about the same, but I enjoyed it overall.
The film starts off with an interesting premise, but the storyline seems to get more and more tangled up in itself as its twists and turns unravel. The viewer is left slightly disoriented by the time it's all said and done. There's at least two twists in there and several complicated conversations explaining what's actually going on. The other big problem for me was the fight scenes. Even though Christian Alvart is in the director's chair this time around, it seems as though some of Anderson's filming techniques left an impression on him as I remember having the same problem during the Resident Evil films (mainly Apocalypse). It's just hard to make out what's going on at times. You know someone has been stabbed or punched or kicked, but the camera zipping around so much sometimes makes it hard to see who is doing what.
The main reason to watch Pandorum is Ben Foster. He's just more and more impressive as an actor with every film he gets under his belt. I grew up watching him as Tucker James on Flash Forward and basically never forgot about him. After appearing in The Punisher, Hostage, and X-Men: The Last Stand, his most impressive role was in 3:10 To Yuma where he almost managed to steal the show from Russel Crowe and Christian Bale. It just seems like the more screen time Foster gets, the more time he has to portray how talented he really is. There are hints of Anderson's work on other films in Pandorum and although I'm not a big fan of his work, it was subtle and enjoyable overall. Event Horizon is the most obvious one, but there was a scene in the film where Bower and a few other people are trying to get to the reactor and they travel through a room that resembled the room in the first Resident Evil film with the lasers that wind up chopping most of them into bits. It was kind of interesting since Anderson's impression was definitely left on the film, but it felt like there was still enough material there for Christian Alvart to do his own thing as director. Speaking of Alvart, I was pleased that his two leads from his film Antibodies (André Hennicke and Wotan Wilke Möhring) had cameos in the film. Even Norman Reedus, who had a small role in Antibodies, managed to have a scene in Pandorum.
While Pandorum's storyline does seem to have about three turns too many and it's a bit difficult to make out what's going on when the action gets intense, it still managed to meet my expectations and be exactly what I was looking for with this type of film. Ben Foster definitely steals the show (Dennis Quaid is pretty good, as well) and the creatures in the film look similar to the ones from The Descent, which makes me think of this film as the offspring of Event Horizon and The Descent. If you're a fan of Event Horizon, Resident Evil, Aliens, or Sunshine, then this may be worth checking out. Considering its reputation, however, it'll probably have to be filed with the rest of my guilty pleasures.
I had wanted to see this film ever since it first hit theaters since it had been a few years since the last sci-fi horror film I really enjoyed and I was really craving one. I missed it during its initial run though since it didn't perform so well at the box office (only a little over $10 million to date) and the response from moviegoers seemed a bit mixed (7.2 on IMDb, 27% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes). I had my doubts about the film since I knew Paul W.S. Anderson was involved and I've been rather disappointed with the majority of his films. Even though he was only a producer this time around, I knew his influence would still be on the project and it certainly was. So how did Pandorum stack up against the rest of Anderson's filmography? Probably about the same, but I enjoyed it overall.
The film starts off with an interesting premise, but the storyline seems to get more and more tangled up in itself as its twists and turns unravel. The viewer is left slightly disoriented by the time it's all said and done. There's at least two twists in there and several complicated conversations explaining what's actually going on. The other big problem for me was the fight scenes. Even though Christian Alvart is in the director's chair this time around, it seems as though some of Anderson's filming techniques left an impression on him as I remember having the same problem during the Resident Evil films (mainly Apocalypse). It's just hard to make out what's going on at times. You know someone has been stabbed or punched or kicked, but the camera zipping around so much sometimes makes it hard to see who is doing what.
The main reason to watch Pandorum is Ben Foster. He's just more and more impressive as an actor with every film he gets under his belt. I grew up watching him as Tucker James on Flash Forward and basically never forgot about him. After appearing in The Punisher, Hostage, and X-Men: The Last Stand, his most impressive role was in 3:10 To Yuma where he almost managed to steal the show from Russel Crowe and Christian Bale. It just seems like the more screen time Foster gets, the more time he has to portray how talented he really is. There are hints of Anderson's work on other films in Pandorum and although I'm not a big fan of his work, it was subtle and enjoyable overall. Event Horizon is the most obvious one, but there was a scene in the film where Bower and a few other people are trying to get to the reactor and they travel through a room that resembled the room in the first Resident Evil film with the lasers that wind up chopping most of them into bits. It was kind of interesting since Anderson's impression was definitely left on the film, but it felt like there was still enough material there for Christian Alvart to do his own thing as director. Speaking of Alvart, I was pleased that his two leads from his film Antibodies (André Hennicke and Wotan Wilke Möhring) had cameos in the film. Even Norman Reedus, who had a small role in Antibodies, managed to have a scene in Pandorum.
While Pandorum's storyline does seem to have about three turns too many and it's a bit difficult to make out what's going on when the action gets intense, it still managed to meet my expectations and be exactly what I was looking for with this type of film. Ben Foster definitely steals the show (Dennis Quaid is pretty good, as well) and the creatures in the film look similar to the ones from The Descent, which makes me think of this film as the offspring of Event Horizon and The Descent. If you're a fan of Event Horizon, Resident Evil, Aliens, or Sunshine, then this may be worth checking out. Considering its reputation, however, it'll probably have to be filed with the rest of my guilty pleasures.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated In a Dark, Dark Wood in Books
Jul 9, 2019
I've been a fan of Ruth Ware since I read The Death of Mrs. Westaway. Actually, what really made me love Ruth Ware was her book The Lying Game. When I came across In a Dark, Dark Wood, I was intrigued to say the least. I'm glad I decided to read this book because I believe it's Ruth Ware's best novel out of the four I've read.
Leonora, or Nora as she likes to be called, receives an email inviting her to Clare's hen do (bachelorette party). Nora and Clare used to be the best of friends, but that was 10 years ago. Nora is a bit wary of the invite, but when her friend Nina is invited and says she'll go if Nora goes, Nora agrees. Nora finds out who Clare is marrying, and it seems like things go from bad to worse including Nora being injured and others being hurt. Nora must find piece together what happened at Clare's hen do in order to figure out the mystery behind everything. There's only one problem. She can't remember what actually happened that night.
The plot really sucked me in right from the beginning. I was wondering why Nora would be invited to someone's hen do that she hasn't seen or spoken with in over 10 years. I also had to understand why Nora would even be interested in going considering it had been so long. I don't think I would have went. However, the whole plot fascinated me. I had to know the motives of everyone. I felt like everyone was a suspect, and I was scrutinizing every little detail. There are some plot twists, and a few of them are predictable, but I still loved In a Dark, Dark Wood. I also loved the fact that there were no cliff hangers, and all of my questions were answered by the end of the book. One thing that did feel a bit improbable but not impossible was how Nora and her ex-boyfriend James ended things when they were teenagers. I have a hard time believing that not one of them would have reached out to the other in the whole ten years they had not seen each other especially right after their break up with what happened. Like I said, I guess it is possible to go without speaking to each other after that, but when something that major happens between a couple (I don't want to give the major thing away due to spoilers), I would have thought there would be more talking at some point.
I felt the characters were well written and had enough depth to the them to feel realistic. I enjoyed the character of Nora. All I can say is with what goes wrong for her makes me glad that I've never been in her position. I admired her desire to find out the truth even if it meant getting herself in trouble. However, sometimes I couldn't understand her reasoning behind some things such as wanting to go to someone's hen do that she hasn't seen or spoken to in ten years! Perhaps other people would go out of curiosity, but I would have just noped out of that. Also, what I mentioned in the previous paragraph about her not speaking to her ex even though there was something major that happened in their relationship. However, I really did like Nora. I had a love/hate relationship with Nina. Sometimes I liked her but other times she came across as too mean. I know that was just meant to be her personality, but I just had a hard time figuring her out. Flo was definitely a character. It was as if she was in love with Clare! She was obsessed with Clare and very high strung. I felt like Flo had some mental problems going on and needed help with them ASAP. I never knew if I should trust Flo or not. Clare seemed like she had changed from her school days when she was manipulative and selfish. I wish Clare would have been more of a forefront character throughout the book, but she felt like a minor character. Tom was definitely an interesting character to say the least. I did really like him, but I also questioned his motives.
I very much enjoyed the pacing for In a Dark, Dark Wood. The pacing flowed smoothly from the very first page. I never once felt like it slowed down at all. I was left hanging on every word.
Trigger warnings for In a Dark, Dark Wood include drinking, smoking, drug use, profanity, mentions of sex although not graphic, violence, gun violence, and death.
All in all, In a Dark, Dark Wood was a fantastic read! I enjoyed every second of the book, and I felt so empty after it ended because it was over. It had all the makings of a great book such as an interesting plot and fantastic characters. I would definitely recommend In a Dark, Dark Wood by Ruth Ware to those aged 17+ that love psychological thrillers and those who want to be sucked into a book from the very first sentence.
Leonora, or Nora as she likes to be called, receives an email inviting her to Clare's hen do (bachelorette party). Nora and Clare used to be the best of friends, but that was 10 years ago. Nora is a bit wary of the invite, but when her friend Nina is invited and says she'll go if Nora goes, Nora agrees. Nora finds out who Clare is marrying, and it seems like things go from bad to worse including Nora being injured and others being hurt. Nora must find piece together what happened at Clare's hen do in order to figure out the mystery behind everything. There's only one problem. She can't remember what actually happened that night.
The plot really sucked me in right from the beginning. I was wondering why Nora would be invited to someone's hen do that she hasn't seen or spoken with in over 10 years. I also had to understand why Nora would even be interested in going considering it had been so long. I don't think I would have went. However, the whole plot fascinated me. I had to know the motives of everyone. I felt like everyone was a suspect, and I was scrutinizing every little detail. There are some plot twists, and a few of them are predictable, but I still loved In a Dark, Dark Wood. I also loved the fact that there were no cliff hangers, and all of my questions were answered by the end of the book. One thing that did feel a bit improbable but not impossible was how Nora and her ex-boyfriend James ended things when they were teenagers. I have a hard time believing that not one of them would have reached out to the other in the whole ten years they had not seen each other especially right after their break up with what happened. Like I said, I guess it is possible to go without speaking to each other after that, but when something that major happens between a couple (I don't want to give the major thing away due to spoilers), I would have thought there would be more talking at some point.
I felt the characters were well written and had enough depth to the them to feel realistic. I enjoyed the character of Nora. All I can say is with what goes wrong for her makes me glad that I've never been in her position. I admired her desire to find out the truth even if it meant getting herself in trouble. However, sometimes I couldn't understand her reasoning behind some things such as wanting to go to someone's hen do that she hasn't seen or spoken to in ten years! Perhaps other people would go out of curiosity, but I would have just noped out of that. Also, what I mentioned in the previous paragraph about her not speaking to her ex even though there was something major that happened in their relationship. However, I really did like Nora. I had a love/hate relationship with Nina. Sometimes I liked her but other times she came across as too mean. I know that was just meant to be her personality, but I just had a hard time figuring her out. Flo was definitely a character. It was as if she was in love with Clare! She was obsessed with Clare and very high strung. I felt like Flo had some mental problems going on and needed help with them ASAP. I never knew if I should trust Flo or not. Clare seemed like she had changed from her school days when she was manipulative and selfish. I wish Clare would have been more of a forefront character throughout the book, but she felt like a minor character. Tom was definitely an interesting character to say the least. I did really like him, but I also questioned his motives.
I very much enjoyed the pacing for In a Dark, Dark Wood. The pacing flowed smoothly from the very first page. I never once felt like it slowed down at all. I was left hanging on every word.
Trigger warnings for In a Dark, Dark Wood include drinking, smoking, drug use, profanity, mentions of sex although not graphic, violence, gun violence, and death.
All in all, In a Dark, Dark Wood was a fantastic read! I enjoyed every second of the book, and I felt so empty after it ended because it was over. It had all the makings of a great book such as an interesting plot and fantastic characters. I would definitely recommend In a Dark, Dark Wood by Ruth Ware to those aged 17+ that love psychological thrillers and those who want to be sucked into a book from the very first sentence.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Virtually brilliant with Easter Eggs a plenty.
Of all the Spielberg films of recent years – and possibly with the exception of “The BFG” – this was the film whose trailer disconcerted me the most. It really looked dire: CGI over heart; gimmicks over substance. I was right about ‘The BFG”, one of my least favourite Spielberg flicks. I was definitely wrong about “Ready Player One”: it’s a blast.
The film is fun in continually throwing surprises at you, including those actors not included in the trailer and only on small print on the poster. So I won’t spoil that here for you (you can of course look them up on imdb if you want to: but I suggest you try to see this one ‘cold’).
It’s 2044, and the majority of the population have taken the next logical step of video gaming and virtual reality and retreated into their own headsets, living out their lives primarily as avatars within the fanciful landscapes of “The Oasis”. You can “be” anyone and (subject to gaining the necessary credits) “do” anything there.
When the housing market is stacked against you. Columbus Ohio circa 2044.
The Oasis was the brainchild of a (Steve Wozniak-like) genius called James Halliday (played in enormous style by “Actor R”) and supported by his (Steve Jobs-like) business partner Ogden Morrow (“Actor P”). The two had a big falling out leaving Halliday in total control of the Oasis. But he died, and his dying “game” was to devise a devious competition that left a trail of three virtual keys in the Oasis leading to an ‘easter egg’: which if found would provide the finder with total ownership of the Oasis and the trillions of dollars that it is worth.
But the game is not only played by amateur “gunters” (egg-hunters) like our hero Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan, “X-Men: Apocalypse“) and his in-Oasis flirting partner Samantha (Olivia Cooke, “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl”); there are big corporate game-hunters involved like IoI (that’s eye-oh-eye, not one-oh-one as I assumed from the trailer) who fill warehouses with combinations of nerd-consultants and professional game players to try to find the keys before anyone else. Which hardly seems fair does it? Ruthless boss Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“) and his tough-as-nails hench-woman F’Nale Zandor (Hannah John-Kamen, “Tomb Raider“) really couldn’t give a toss!
In the future, everyone is reaching out for something.
What follows is two-hours of high-octane game-play and eye-popping 3D (it is good in 3D by the way) that melds a baseline of “Avatar” with soupçons of “Tron”, “Minority Report” and Dan Brown novels. But its a blend that works.
I was afraid as I said that CGI would squash flat any hope of character development and story, and – yes – to be sure this is ‘suppressed’ a bit. You never get to really know many of the ‘pack’ members to any great level other than Wade and Samantha. And exactly what drives the corporate protagonists, other than “corporate greed”, is not particularly clear. What gives the film heart though are the performances of “Actor P” and (particularly) “Actor R”, who again steals every scene he is in. For their limited screen time together, the pair bounce off each other in a delightful way.
I have to make a confession at this point that I spent the whole film thinking “Miles Teller is way too old for the part of Wade”! Tye Sheridan (who I think *does* bear a likeness!) is actually much more age appropriate, and is fine in the role. But the star performance for me, out of the youngsters at least, was Oldham’s-own Olivia Cooke, who has a genuinely magnetic screen presence. She is most definitely a name to watch for the future.
Ready Player One
Young star of the show for me – Olivia Cooke as Samantha.
Lena Waithe (“Master of None”) plays Wade’s inventor friend Helen.
The story, although simple and quite one-dimensional, in the main intrigues: there is nothing like a Mario-style chase for keys to entertain when it is done well (I am so old and crusty that in my day it was “Manic Miner” on a ZX-Spectrum!).
He’s iron and he’s just gigantic! Reb’s creation becomes a force to be reckoned with when needed.
And there’s not just one “Easter Egg” in this film: the film is rammed to the rafters with throwbacks to classic pop-culture icons of past decades, and particularly the 80’s…. the film could have been subtitled “I ❤ 80’s”. Some of these are subliminal (Mayor Goldie Wilson anyone?), and others are more prominent but very clever: “The Zemekis cube” and “The Holy Hand Grenade” being prime examples. This is a film that deserves buying on Blu-ray and then slo-mo-ing through! The nostalgia extends to the music by Alan Silvestri, with occasional motifs from his most famous soundtrack!
For me though, the highspot of the film is a journey into a recreation of a classic ’80’s film which – while a scary sequence, earning for sure its 12A UK rating – is done with verve and chutzpah.
Wade’s avatar, Parzival.
Although a little overlong (2 hours 20 mins) and getting rather over-blown and LOTR-esque in the finale, the ending is very satisfying – roll on Tuesdays and Thursdays!
Spielberg’s recent films have been largely solid and well-constructed watches (“The Post” and “Bridge of Spies” for example) but they have been more niche than mainstream box office draws. I firmly predict that “Ready Player One” will change that: here Spielberg has a sure-fire hit on his hands and word of mouth (rather than the ho-hum trailer) should assure that.
The film is fun in continually throwing surprises at you, including those actors not included in the trailer and only on small print on the poster. So I won’t spoil that here for you (you can of course look them up on imdb if you want to: but I suggest you try to see this one ‘cold’).
It’s 2044, and the majority of the population have taken the next logical step of video gaming and virtual reality and retreated into their own headsets, living out their lives primarily as avatars within the fanciful landscapes of “The Oasis”. You can “be” anyone and (subject to gaining the necessary credits) “do” anything there.
When the housing market is stacked against you. Columbus Ohio circa 2044.
The Oasis was the brainchild of a (Steve Wozniak-like) genius called James Halliday (played in enormous style by “Actor R”) and supported by his (Steve Jobs-like) business partner Ogden Morrow (“Actor P”). The two had a big falling out leaving Halliday in total control of the Oasis. But he died, and his dying “game” was to devise a devious competition that left a trail of three virtual keys in the Oasis leading to an ‘easter egg’: which if found would provide the finder with total ownership of the Oasis and the trillions of dollars that it is worth.
But the game is not only played by amateur “gunters” (egg-hunters) like our hero Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan, “X-Men: Apocalypse“) and his in-Oasis flirting partner Samantha (Olivia Cooke, “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl”); there are big corporate game-hunters involved like IoI (that’s eye-oh-eye, not one-oh-one as I assumed from the trailer) who fill warehouses with combinations of nerd-consultants and professional game players to try to find the keys before anyone else. Which hardly seems fair does it? Ruthless boss Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“) and his tough-as-nails hench-woman F’Nale Zandor (Hannah John-Kamen, “Tomb Raider“) really couldn’t give a toss!
In the future, everyone is reaching out for something.
What follows is two-hours of high-octane game-play and eye-popping 3D (it is good in 3D by the way) that melds a baseline of “Avatar” with soupçons of “Tron”, “Minority Report” and Dan Brown novels. But its a blend that works.
I was afraid as I said that CGI would squash flat any hope of character development and story, and – yes – to be sure this is ‘suppressed’ a bit. You never get to really know many of the ‘pack’ members to any great level other than Wade and Samantha. And exactly what drives the corporate protagonists, other than “corporate greed”, is not particularly clear. What gives the film heart though are the performances of “Actor P” and (particularly) “Actor R”, who again steals every scene he is in. For their limited screen time together, the pair bounce off each other in a delightful way.
I have to make a confession at this point that I spent the whole film thinking “Miles Teller is way too old for the part of Wade”! Tye Sheridan (who I think *does* bear a likeness!) is actually much more age appropriate, and is fine in the role. But the star performance for me, out of the youngsters at least, was Oldham’s-own Olivia Cooke, who has a genuinely magnetic screen presence. She is most definitely a name to watch for the future.
Ready Player One
Young star of the show for me – Olivia Cooke as Samantha.
Lena Waithe (“Master of None”) plays Wade’s inventor friend Helen.
The story, although simple and quite one-dimensional, in the main intrigues: there is nothing like a Mario-style chase for keys to entertain when it is done well (I am so old and crusty that in my day it was “Manic Miner” on a ZX-Spectrum!).
He’s iron and he’s just gigantic! Reb’s creation becomes a force to be reckoned with when needed.
And there’s not just one “Easter Egg” in this film: the film is rammed to the rafters with throwbacks to classic pop-culture icons of past decades, and particularly the 80’s…. the film could have been subtitled “I ❤ 80’s”. Some of these are subliminal (Mayor Goldie Wilson anyone?), and others are more prominent but very clever: “The Zemekis cube” and “The Holy Hand Grenade” being prime examples. This is a film that deserves buying on Blu-ray and then slo-mo-ing through! The nostalgia extends to the music by Alan Silvestri, with occasional motifs from his most famous soundtrack!
For me though, the highspot of the film is a journey into a recreation of a classic ’80’s film which – while a scary sequence, earning for sure its 12A UK rating – is done with verve and chutzpah.
Wade’s avatar, Parzival.
Although a little overlong (2 hours 20 mins) and getting rather over-blown and LOTR-esque in the finale, the ending is very satisfying – roll on Tuesdays and Thursdays!
Spielberg’s recent films have been largely solid and well-constructed watches (“The Post” and “Bridge of Spies” for example) but they have been more niche than mainstream box office draws. I firmly predict that “Ready Player One” will change that: here Spielberg has a sure-fire hit on his hands and word of mouth (rather than the ho-hum trailer) should assure that.