Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Buffalo '66 (1998) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Characters – Billy Brown has just been released from prison, he has had his own problems which led to him being in prison and it isn’t long before he goes to the extremes to impress his family. He is painted as an aggressive man that believes that woman are just objects and has built his world in lies. Layla is the tap dancer that gets kidnapped, she starts to play along with what Billy wants and even enjoy his company the more time they spend together. Jimmy and Jan are his parents that have both been either distracted or strict in raising Billy, as he wants to impress them now. The Bookie is the man that put Billy in jail as a result of the debts he owed him, he gave him a choice with jail being the only one that didn’t hurt anyone.
Performances – Vincent Gallo doesn’t bring us a very interesting character, it isn’t written well or directed to make us interested in him, he just can’t make this character work. Christina Ricci was trying to break out of the child star roles by now, this is different to what we had seen before, though she does look bored through the film. the rest of the cast struggle too, it is just poorly written to give the actors a chance.
Story – The story follows a gambler that had paid the price for his addiction and now is free, he wants revenge only he spends the time with his kidnap victim as we get to see the difficult life he has had which led him to the life of crime. Well I think that is what we are meant to be seeing, the story does drag along at an awfully slow pace with nothing much happening, trying to make us believe the two could be falling in love, though he is abusive with his actions and spends more time running around looking for a toilet than showing any sort of emotion.
Comedy/Crime/Romance – If this is meant to be a comedy, the jokes miss big time as you will struggle to get a laugh out of this film, while the crime only seems to focus on the kidnapping, which she could have escaped from with ease plenty of times, so that never feels like a threat, the romance just feels awkward for the most part of the film because there is zero chemistry between the two.
Settings – The film is set in the Buffalo area, which is meant to be about the passion of the locals, it could easily be any town with a big American football team.
Scene of the Movie – The first look at the dinner table makes it a clever shot, until it gets boring.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We spend more time looking for a toilet.
Final Thoughts – This is just a dreadfully dull movie that has no direction in anyway, it fails to capture any attention from the audience with a truly unlikeable main character.
Overall: Dreadfully boring.
Performances – Vincent Gallo doesn’t bring us a very interesting character, it isn’t written well or directed to make us interested in him, he just can’t make this character work. Christina Ricci was trying to break out of the child star roles by now, this is different to what we had seen before, though she does look bored through the film. the rest of the cast struggle too, it is just poorly written to give the actors a chance.
Story – The story follows a gambler that had paid the price for his addiction and now is free, he wants revenge only he spends the time with his kidnap victim as we get to see the difficult life he has had which led him to the life of crime. Well I think that is what we are meant to be seeing, the story does drag along at an awfully slow pace with nothing much happening, trying to make us believe the two could be falling in love, though he is abusive with his actions and spends more time running around looking for a toilet than showing any sort of emotion.
Comedy/Crime/Romance – If this is meant to be a comedy, the jokes miss big time as you will struggle to get a laugh out of this film, while the crime only seems to focus on the kidnapping, which she could have escaped from with ease plenty of times, so that never feels like a threat, the romance just feels awkward for the most part of the film because there is zero chemistry between the two.
Settings – The film is set in the Buffalo area, which is meant to be about the passion of the locals, it could easily be any town with a big American football team.
Scene of the Movie – The first look at the dinner table makes it a clever shot, until it gets boring.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We spend more time looking for a toilet.
Final Thoughts – This is just a dreadfully dull movie that has no direction in anyway, it fails to capture any attention from the audience with a truly unlikeable main character.
Overall: Dreadfully boring.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Rope (1948) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
80 minutes of magic!
Two men, the charismatic and charming Phillip, and the cowardly and sheepish Brandon have just strangled their mutual friend, David, and are holding him in their arms. To dispose of the body, they decide on the bold move a placing it in a large trunk in the middle of the living room of their high rise apartment building. They don't have much time to discuss their situation before guests start arriving for their dinner party which had been planned beforehand.
After the guests arrive, the usual small talk and chit chat commences with those attending including David fiance and a former college professor of the men. After the idle conversation starts to bore, it is mentioned how interesting it would be to murder someone and the consequences of doing so. It's no dig deal to dispose of people you don't like is it? Some party-goers are not keen on this conversation and lead it in a new direction eventually focusing on the missing David who has not yet arrived.
Eventually, the unresolved issue of David's absence is brushed aside for the moment and the guests leave to go about their lives. The college professor returns after having been given verbal clues in the former conversations about the nefarious activity of Phillip and David as well as some physical ones. He confronts the duo and David is unable to hold back.
The mystery has been revealed and the men have to deal with the fallout and consequences.
The physical limitation of the amount of film cameras of the day were able to hold was the only drawback for the way Hitchcock managed to shoot this film. There are only 10 total shots within the film ranging from 4 to 10 minutes. The cuts were achieved through normal editing, but also the actors and camera intersecting for brief moments where a momentary black frame would occur continuing the action right after this moment.
I can't even imagine the amount of rehearsal and takes would have been necessary for both the actors and production crew to orchestrate visual and vocal cues and not making mistakes for such a long time for each shot to be completed successfully. The film feels much like a stage production having all the scenes occur mainly in the living room and foyer areas, but that had to be by design.
With no elaborate staging, the audience is left to enjoy the masterful screenplay nonstop and trying to figure out if the two murderers will actually be able to dissuade blame or be confronted with the guilt.
One of many Jimmy Stewart's many Hitchcock collaborations, his performance mostly gets overlooked here in comparison to Vertigo and Rear Window; however, once he arrives at the party it is kind to see him and he delivers another captivating and motivated performance.
In the current days of digital filmmaking and continuous camera shots which can now be processed with computers, it is monumental Hitchcock was able to achieve this feat back in the day with only relentless dedication, but also precise and genius execution.
After the guests arrive, the usual small talk and chit chat commences with those attending including David fiance and a former college professor of the men. After the idle conversation starts to bore, it is mentioned how interesting it would be to murder someone and the consequences of doing so. It's no dig deal to dispose of people you don't like is it? Some party-goers are not keen on this conversation and lead it in a new direction eventually focusing on the missing David who has not yet arrived.
Eventually, the unresolved issue of David's absence is brushed aside for the moment and the guests leave to go about their lives. The college professor returns after having been given verbal clues in the former conversations about the nefarious activity of Phillip and David as well as some physical ones. He confronts the duo and David is unable to hold back.
The mystery has been revealed and the men have to deal with the fallout and consequences.
The physical limitation of the amount of film cameras of the day were able to hold was the only drawback for the way Hitchcock managed to shoot this film. There are only 10 total shots within the film ranging from 4 to 10 minutes. The cuts were achieved through normal editing, but also the actors and camera intersecting for brief moments where a momentary black frame would occur continuing the action right after this moment.
I can't even imagine the amount of rehearsal and takes would have been necessary for both the actors and production crew to orchestrate visual and vocal cues and not making mistakes for such a long time for each shot to be completed successfully. The film feels much like a stage production having all the scenes occur mainly in the living room and foyer areas, but that had to be by design.
With no elaborate staging, the audience is left to enjoy the masterful screenplay nonstop and trying to figure out if the two murderers will actually be able to dissuade blame or be confronted with the guilt.
One of many Jimmy Stewart's many Hitchcock collaborations, his performance mostly gets overlooked here in comparison to Vertigo and Rear Window; however, once he arrives at the party it is kind to see him and he delivers another captivating and motivated performance.
In the current days of digital filmmaking and continuous camera shots which can now be processed with computers, it is monumental Hitchcock was able to achieve this feat back in the day with only relentless dedication, but also precise and genius execution.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
May 14, 2020
Perfect Match of Director and Material
1954's REAR WINDOW is my favorite of all of the Alfred Hitchock films. So when it came time to expose my college-aged children to the works of "the Master of Suspense", it was a "no-brainer" as to which film it would be.
And...they loved it.
Starring "everyman" Jimmy Stewart and the always fabulous Grace Kelly, REAR WINDOW tells the tale of photographer L.B. Jefferies (Stewart) who is laid up in his New York apartment with a broken leg. His only means of entertainment is looking out of the "rear window" of his apartment into the courtyard - and the other apartments (and the people) therein.
This is a treatise on voyeurism and the pairing of this material with a master of film like Hitchcock is a marriage made in heaven. He sets up most of the movie so you are viewing the events as though you are Jefferies - confined to his apartment. Each apartment around the courtyard are their own little viewing boxes. He does a neat, subtle trick in this film. When he pans counter-clockwise, he is just browsing the apartments (like channel surfing on TV). When he pans clockwise - or goes straight to an apartment - he is focusing on that place/story. More often than not, the scenes in the apartments that Jefferies is looking at is mirroring what is going on in the relationship between Stewart and Kelly - sometimes with a sinister undertone. As always, Hitchcock ratchets up the suspense in a way only he can - focusing on a mundane item/thing until it becomes malevolent. This could have easily been a boring/static film, but in Hitchcock's capable hands, there is movement aplenty and the film flows beautifully.
As for the performances, Stewart has never been better as the audience stand-in/everyman who goes from charming scamp just snatching peeks of his neighbors to "peeping-tom" voyeur who is intruding in the private lives of his fellow courtyard denizens. Grace Kelly is just radiant in the way Hitchcock photographs her and in the way that all-time great costumer Edith Head dresses her. She is perfectly made-up and costumed to make her "the most beautiful woman in the world". But...what caught me in this viewing was how good of an acting job she does in this film. In previous viewings I was swept up in the look and feel of the actress. This time, I was taken in by the character and she became the one in this film I was rooting for. Well...either Grace Kelly or the great character actress Thelma Ritter as insurance nurse (and willing accomplice) Stella. She almost steals the movie from the two leads...almost.
All of the elements at play in this film work - acting, costuming, scenic design, cinematography and script - all wrapped up by a Master Director at the top of his game.
If you only watch one Alfred Hitchock film, make it REAR WINDOW. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...they loved it.
Starring "everyman" Jimmy Stewart and the always fabulous Grace Kelly, REAR WINDOW tells the tale of photographer L.B. Jefferies (Stewart) who is laid up in his New York apartment with a broken leg. His only means of entertainment is looking out of the "rear window" of his apartment into the courtyard - and the other apartments (and the people) therein.
This is a treatise on voyeurism and the pairing of this material with a master of film like Hitchcock is a marriage made in heaven. He sets up most of the movie so you are viewing the events as though you are Jefferies - confined to his apartment. Each apartment around the courtyard are their own little viewing boxes. He does a neat, subtle trick in this film. When he pans counter-clockwise, he is just browsing the apartments (like channel surfing on TV). When he pans clockwise - or goes straight to an apartment - he is focusing on that place/story. More often than not, the scenes in the apartments that Jefferies is looking at is mirroring what is going on in the relationship between Stewart and Kelly - sometimes with a sinister undertone. As always, Hitchcock ratchets up the suspense in a way only he can - focusing on a mundane item/thing until it becomes malevolent. This could have easily been a boring/static film, but in Hitchcock's capable hands, there is movement aplenty and the film flows beautifully.
As for the performances, Stewart has never been better as the audience stand-in/everyman who goes from charming scamp just snatching peeks of his neighbors to "peeping-tom" voyeur who is intruding in the private lives of his fellow courtyard denizens. Grace Kelly is just radiant in the way Hitchcock photographs her and in the way that all-time great costumer Edith Head dresses her. She is perfectly made-up and costumed to make her "the most beautiful woman in the world". But...what caught me in this viewing was how good of an acting job she does in this film. In previous viewings I was swept up in the look and feel of the actress. This time, I was taken in by the character and she became the one in this film I was rooting for. Well...either Grace Kelly or the great character actress Thelma Ritter as insurance nurse (and willing accomplice) Stella. She almost steals the movie from the two leads...almost.
All of the elements at play in this film work - acting, costuming, scenic design, cinematography and script - all wrapped up by a Master Director at the top of his game.
If you only watch one Alfred Hitchock film, make it REAR WINDOW. You'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Hardcore Henry (2016) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017 (Updated Oct 24, 2017)
An Original Thrill
The trailers for this movie had me intrigued from the get go, then the reviews were released and they just made me want to see this movie even more, so going in my hype level was pretty high and Hardcore Henry still managed to exceed my expectations. I mean, its not going to win any Oscars, but if you are looking for a non stop over the top action thrill ride, then wade right in. There is no holds barred here, this is proper action done in a unique way. The method of shooting isn’t perfect, it uses a great deal of shaky cam, so much so that it ends up obscuring some of the fast paced fight scenes and stunt choreography, which is a shame as the stunts are really spectacular and they only ramp up as the movie progresses. I loved Sharlto Copley in District 9, but he hasn’t wowed me since then, until I saw his performance in this movie. This performance really shows how diverse he is and there is a certain musical number involving him that is definitely one of the highlights of the movie, but I won’t spoil it here. In fact I can’t really say anything about his character without spoiling him other than his name is Jimmy and he is awesome.
The villain in this movie is ripped straight out of a cheesy video game, but he is kind of so bad that he’s good. He looks like the Targaryan brother from Game Of Thrones, he sounds like someone doing a bad John Malkovich impression and he has telekinesis powers to boot. His powers are never explained, but he is basically a jedi without a lightsabre from an 80’s electronic music video. Actually, comparing this movie to a video game is probably the most accurate way to describe it. Think a modern sci fi game that plays like classic Doom and you aren’t far off, which in my opinion is one of the most epic concepts ever conceived. However the concept is only the starting blocks of a project like this one, the execution has to be great as well to stop the movie from only ever being remembered as a throwaway neat idea. Thankfully the execution is effective here both figuratively and literally. This is one of they movies where you feel like a kid again while you watch it and it is glorious to experience from start to finish. The special effects are actually pretty good for what is presumably a pretty low budget film, over the top and fantastically ridiculous, but they add to the madness of the piece and they are a feast for the eyes. The soundtrack is pretty spot on too, it perfectly melds with the insane, fast paced, badass tone that the filmmakers were aiming for and helps to keep that high octane feel going for the duration of the flick.
Hardcore Henry is not a perfect movie by any stretch, but for what it is it delivers in a big way. It is highly entertaining and whether you enjoy this style of movie or not, it is hard to take your eyes off of the screen for the hour and a half that it is on for, this movie is going to grip you and take you for a high stakes mental ride whether you like it or not. If you are into over the top action and ridiculous stunts and set pieces, then I could not recommend this movie more.
The villain in this movie is ripped straight out of a cheesy video game, but he is kind of so bad that he’s good. He looks like the Targaryan brother from Game Of Thrones, he sounds like someone doing a bad John Malkovich impression and he has telekinesis powers to boot. His powers are never explained, but he is basically a jedi without a lightsabre from an 80’s electronic music video. Actually, comparing this movie to a video game is probably the most accurate way to describe it. Think a modern sci fi game that plays like classic Doom and you aren’t far off, which in my opinion is one of the most epic concepts ever conceived. However the concept is only the starting blocks of a project like this one, the execution has to be great as well to stop the movie from only ever being remembered as a throwaway neat idea. Thankfully the execution is effective here both figuratively and literally. This is one of they movies where you feel like a kid again while you watch it and it is glorious to experience from start to finish. The special effects are actually pretty good for what is presumably a pretty low budget film, over the top and fantastically ridiculous, but they add to the madness of the piece and they are a feast for the eyes. The soundtrack is pretty spot on too, it perfectly melds with the insane, fast paced, badass tone that the filmmakers were aiming for and helps to keep that high octane feel going for the duration of the flick.
Hardcore Henry is not a perfect movie by any stretch, but for what it is it delivers in a big way. It is highly entertaining and whether you enjoy this style of movie or not, it is hard to take your eyes off of the screen for the hour and a half that it is on for, this movie is going to grip you and take you for a high stakes mental ride whether you like it or not. If you are into over the top action and ridiculous stunts and set pieces, then I could not recommend this movie more.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Fever Pitch (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Spring is the time of year when past failures of the fall are forgotten by most baseball fans. While hope springs eternal every spring for most fans, Boston Red Sox fans have long had a love/hate relationship with their team. This is due in large part to the Red Sox’s ongoing and often bizarre ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for year after year, decade after decade, causing fans to claim that the team has been cursed ever since they traded Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees back in 1918. They have failed to win a championship since.
That is, until the magical season of 2005 where lifetimes of tears and frustrations were cleansed by an improbable and historic comeback from a three games to none series deficit to the Yankees, and a four game sweep of the St Louis Cardinals in the World Series.
In the new romantic comedy Fever Pitch two worlds are about to collide in a fury of romance and humor when workaholic Lindsey Meeks (Drew Barrymore), meets and starts to date a school teacher named Ben (Jimmy Fallon). Though their first date is hampered by a bad virus, Lindsey is taken by Ben’s gentle and compassionate nature, finding him very kind, loving and attentive.
As the two become closer over the winter, Ben asks Lindsey to attend opening day at Fenway with him as a sign of his love and commitment to her. Knowing Ben’s passion for the game, Lindsey accepts but soon finds out, that Ben is fanatical about his love of the Sox and that every aspect of his life has to be scheduled around their
games. While this is at first a minor issue, as time goes on it becomes a bigger problem when Ben refuses to take trips or attend parties and functions that interfere with games.
Naturally this soon wears very thin for Lindsey as she begins to question how committed Ben is to her and their future. The humor in the film arises from watching the very kind and lovable Ben become a different person when he is watching his beloved Sox. Rather then painting Ben as an oddball, the story does show why he has such an extreme devotion to the team, as well as how the people around him react to his devotion. His male friends simply accept it as they are rabid fans themselves, while we learn that every woman in his past has had an issue with his love of the Sox.
What really makes the film shine is the solid work by the two leads. Barrymore has a charm and grace to her that lets Lindsey come off as a very lovable and compassionate lady, rather than a selfish shrew who craves attention. Fallon meanwhile is solid, showing the duality of his life, as well as the dilemma he has between wanting to be with Lindsey and his lifelong devotion to the Sox.
The film moves at a steady pace and has more than enough humor to make you leave the theater with a smile, even if you are not a baseball fan. While some may say the plot is a bit shallow and formulistic, the film wisely puts the attention on the two leads and not on the sports action which results in a very winning combo.
That is, until the magical season of 2005 where lifetimes of tears and frustrations were cleansed by an improbable and historic comeback from a three games to none series deficit to the Yankees, and a four game sweep of the St Louis Cardinals in the World Series.
In the new romantic comedy Fever Pitch two worlds are about to collide in a fury of romance and humor when workaholic Lindsey Meeks (Drew Barrymore), meets and starts to date a school teacher named Ben (Jimmy Fallon). Though their first date is hampered by a bad virus, Lindsey is taken by Ben’s gentle and compassionate nature, finding him very kind, loving and attentive.
As the two become closer over the winter, Ben asks Lindsey to attend opening day at Fenway with him as a sign of his love and commitment to her. Knowing Ben’s passion for the game, Lindsey accepts but soon finds out, that Ben is fanatical about his love of the Sox and that every aspect of his life has to be scheduled around their
games. While this is at first a minor issue, as time goes on it becomes a bigger problem when Ben refuses to take trips or attend parties and functions that interfere with games.
Naturally this soon wears very thin for Lindsey as she begins to question how committed Ben is to her and their future. The humor in the film arises from watching the very kind and lovable Ben become a different person when he is watching his beloved Sox. Rather then painting Ben as an oddball, the story does show why he has such an extreme devotion to the team, as well as how the people around him react to his devotion. His male friends simply accept it as they are rabid fans themselves, while we learn that every woman in his past has had an issue with his love of the Sox.
What really makes the film shine is the solid work by the two leads. Barrymore has a charm and grace to her that lets Lindsey come off as a very lovable and compassionate lady, rather than a selfish shrew who craves attention. Fallon meanwhile is solid, showing the duality of his life, as well as the dilemma he has between wanting to be with Lindsey and his lifelong devotion to the Sox.
The film moves at a steady pace and has more than enough humor to make you leave the theater with a smile, even if you are not a baseball fan. While some may say the plot is a bit shallow and formulistic, the film wisely puts the attention on the two leads and not on the sports action which results in a very winning combo.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Great but disappointing
Frank Sheeran starts in humble beginnings driving a meat truck while trying to make a living to support his family. He takes the favor of the right connect mobsters and quickly rises through the ranks to become one of its elite. He perpetrates countless villainous activities including murder, bribery, extortion and general unpleasantness toward his fellow man to the point where it almost becomes routine.
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Edward Scissorhands (1990) in Movies
Apr 23, 2020
Has more heart than later Burton/Depp collaborations
There have been many actor/director long term collaborations through the years - John Ford/John Wayne, Martin Scorcese/Robert DeNiro and Alfred Hitchock/Jimmy Stewart all come to mind. Another interesting collaboration is the unique one between Tim Burton and Johnny Depp. The films these 2 have made have shown an "outsider" being introduced into an environment - usually in a quirky and gothic dark manner. So it was interesting to go back to the film that started it all - 1990's EDWARD SCISSORHANDS.
Interestingly enough, this film works because of the lack of weight of previous Burton/Depp collaborations.
Let me explain...
If you were to hear today that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp were to collaborate on a film, what expectations would you have? Quirky, dark and gothic comes to mind. With EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, none of these expectations were in place. You can see the purity in the beginning of this collaboration with these 2 artists finding there footing together in a film that is...yes...quirky, dark and gothic.
It is also, unexpectedly, light, airy, funny and poignant - traits that I think get lost in later Burton/Depp collaborations....collaborations where the focus seemed to be on the design and look and less on the emotion.
Set in a timeless, stylized world that is part '50's, part '60's, part 80's and part "everything else", EDWARD SCISSORHANDS is Burton's loose retelling of the Frankenstein story, where an isolated inventor (in this case Vincent Price) creates life (Depp)...with scissors for hands (you'll have to see the film to see why). When a local resident (and door to door cosmetic saleslady) discovers Edward living alone, she invites him into her house - and into the lives of the the neighborhood that exists below.
Depp owns this character - and owns it well. He brings an innocence and integrity to this character that rides a fine line well. His character is naive - but not simpleminded. He is longing to please - and to be loved - but has his own mind. In Depp's performance, you see an actor coming into his own.
He is joined - wonderfully - by Diane Wiest as the lady that invites him into her home. Winona Ryder (who turned down Godfather 3 to appear in this film) as Wiest's daughter (and object of Edward's affections) and the great Alan Arkin as the patriarch of the family who is a fun stereo-type of the Suburban dad.
All of this is packaged - uniquely - by Burton with an "8 crayon" color palate that exaggerates the various styles of the time. It is an expert job of combining styles into a unique vision that works very, very well.
I also have to give Burton credit for casting the iconic horror movie veteran Vincent Price (in his last film role) as the inventor of Edward Scissorhands.
I was taken under the spell of this film - and not just because of the interesting visuals - it has a heart and soul (because of Depp's work) that, I think both Depp and Burton lose in some of their later collaborations.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile - check it out - I think you'll like it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Interestingly enough, this film works because of the lack of weight of previous Burton/Depp collaborations.
Let me explain...
If you were to hear today that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp were to collaborate on a film, what expectations would you have? Quirky, dark and gothic comes to mind. With EDWARD SCISSORHANDS, none of these expectations were in place. You can see the purity in the beginning of this collaboration with these 2 artists finding there footing together in a film that is...yes...quirky, dark and gothic.
It is also, unexpectedly, light, airy, funny and poignant - traits that I think get lost in later Burton/Depp collaborations....collaborations where the focus seemed to be on the design and look and less on the emotion.
Set in a timeless, stylized world that is part '50's, part '60's, part 80's and part "everything else", EDWARD SCISSORHANDS is Burton's loose retelling of the Frankenstein story, where an isolated inventor (in this case Vincent Price) creates life (Depp)...with scissors for hands (you'll have to see the film to see why). When a local resident (and door to door cosmetic saleslady) discovers Edward living alone, she invites him into her house - and into the lives of the the neighborhood that exists below.
Depp owns this character - and owns it well. He brings an innocence and integrity to this character that rides a fine line well. His character is naive - but not simpleminded. He is longing to please - and to be loved - but has his own mind. In Depp's performance, you see an actor coming into his own.
He is joined - wonderfully - by Diane Wiest as the lady that invites him into her home. Winona Ryder (who turned down Godfather 3 to appear in this film) as Wiest's daughter (and object of Edward's affections) and the great Alan Arkin as the patriarch of the family who is a fun stereo-type of the Suburban dad.
All of this is packaged - uniquely - by Burton with an "8 crayon" color palate that exaggerates the various styles of the time. It is an expert job of combining styles into a unique vision that works very, very well.
I also have to give Burton credit for casting the iconic horror movie veteran Vincent Price (in his last film role) as the inventor of Edward Scissorhands.
I was taken under the spell of this film - and not just because of the interesting visuals - it has a heart and soul (because of Depp's work) that, I think both Depp and Burton lose in some of their later collaborations.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile - check it out - I think you'll like it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated James Acaster: Repertoire in TV
Aug 6, 2020 (Updated Aug 6, 2020)
I have been a fan of stand up comedy, erm, all my life… well, at least since Billy Connely kinda invented it, in a way that wasn’t all about hating the mother in law and homophobia. When I moved to Edinburgh in 1999, I found myself at the epicentre of new comedy, every August at the unparalleled event that is the Fringe Festival.
Over the years I have seen most of the living greats at the art live, be it a full show or a smaller set at the legendary bullpit of Late and Live. Sad exceptions being Eddie Izzard and Dylan Moran, still on the bucket list. It has given me a pretty good eye for who is gonna make it big when they start out. I saw Jack Whitehall aged 16; Jimmy Carr before anyone knew who he was; and many others that have gone on to have decent TV and touring careers.
Having moved to Glasgow in recent years I started to see less comedy. Not that The Stand and other venues don’t have it going on, but because it just feels less of a thing outside of Edinburgh. So, when James Acaster came to my old place of work, the legendary Oran Mor, I booked tickets for myself, my daughter and her boyfriend in a heartbeat.
I had seen him do a lot of Mock The Week and a few other guest spots on TV, and thought from the start that this guy had something kinda special. The main good sign being that he made me laugh! A kind of blonder Jarvis Cocker, with the dress sense to match, he has a quirky, sleepy but cross delivery that is a total winner. He is very fast with an improvised moment, is very clever in his off kilter observations, and charmingly wanders into surreal tangents whenever possible. In other words, totally up my comedy avenue.
I was delighted to see that he had a new four part special on Netflix when I was recently surfing around old comedy shows I’ve seen half a dozen times. Repertoire is consecutive shows that work either alone, or payoff better as a whole, when early jokes get a back reference in a genius fashion. To explain why they are funny is not a thing I’m about to attempt. Comedy is so subjective; if it makes you laugh then it is good, if not… it might still be good, but not for you. You have to watch it to know.
So many highlights. At least three moments that made me have to pause it because I was laughing almost too much and in danger of passing out. Generally, you get a content knowing smile out of it, patting yourself on the back for getting his multi-layered intentions. Some things are just weird or hilarious, but often there is an intelligent point being made on the sly. When the two combine, I find him one of the best around for quality of writing and delivery.
As a side note, in part 3 of Repertoire he makes reference to a recent nightmare gig, when the entire front row of a Glasgow show kicked off and threw verbal abuse at him. That was the show we were at! He handled it remarkably well, turning the final portion of the show into an improv about that, chucked the planned material away. It isn’t every stand-up that can handle hecklers that well. Total kudos, Mr Acaster.
Recommended big time.
Over the years I have seen most of the living greats at the art live, be it a full show or a smaller set at the legendary bullpit of Late and Live. Sad exceptions being Eddie Izzard and Dylan Moran, still on the bucket list. It has given me a pretty good eye for who is gonna make it big when they start out. I saw Jack Whitehall aged 16; Jimmy Carr before anyone knew who he was; and many others that have gone on to have decent TV and touring careers.
Having moved to Glasgow in recent years I started to see less comedy. Not that The Stand and other venues don’t have it going on, but because it just feels less of a thing outside of Edinburgh. So, when James Acaster came to my old place of work, the legendary Oran Mor, I booked tickets for myself, my daughter and her boyfriend in a heartbeat.
I had seen him do a lot of Mock The Week and a few other guest spots on TV, and thought from the start that this guy had something kinda special. The main good sign being that he made me laugh! A kind of blonder Jarvis Cocker, with the dress sense to match, he has a quirky, sleepy but cross delivery that is a total winner. He is very fast with an improvised moment, is very clever in his off kilter observations, and charmingly wanders into surreal tangents whenever possible. In other words, totally up my comedy avenue.
I was delighted to see that he had a new four part special on Netflix when I was recently surfing around old comedy shows I’ve seen half a dozen times. Repertoire is consecutive shows that work either alone, or payoff better as a whole, when early jokes get a back reference in a genius fashion. To explain why they are funny is not a thing I’m about to attempt. Comedy is so subjective; if it makes you laugh then it is good, if not… it might still be good, but not for you. You have to watch it to know.
So many highlights. At least three moments that made me have to pause it because I was laughing almost too much and in danger of passing out. Generally, you get a content knowing smile out of it, patting yourself on the back for getting his multi-layered intentions. Some things are just weird or hilarious, but often there is an intelligent point being made on the sly. When the two combine, I find him one of the best around for quality of writing and delivery.
As a side note, in part 3 of Repertoire he makes reference to a recent nightmare gig, when the entire front row of a Glasgow show kicked off and threw verbal abuse at him. That was the show we were at! He handled it remarkably well, turning the final portion of the show into an improv about that, chucked the planned material away. It isn’t every stand-up that can handle hecklers that well. Total kudos, Mr Acaster.
Recommended big time.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing” could be a summary of this modern-age disaster movie. In 2010 the “Deepwater Horizon” drilling rig off the coast of Louisiana failed in spectacular fashion, bursting into flames and spewing millions of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico in what was the worst oil-spill in American history. Mark Wahlberg plays the well-respected electrical ‘Mr fixit’ Mike Williams on the rig, reporting to the Operations Manager Jimmy Harrell (Kurt Russell).
The exploratory project is way-behind and BP are not happy. Big-wigs from the company add support to Donald Vidrine, the BP site leader, in applying mounting pressure on Harrell to press on regardless without all the necessary and time-consuming tests by Schlumberger being completed. Rogue numbers in further tests are waved away as ‘glitches’. A familiar story of corporate greed and pressure overriding the expert’s better judgment.
When disaster strikes it strikes quickly, with some spectacular and exciting special effects that leave the audience especially hot under the collar. Female support is provided by the comely Andrea Fleytas (Gina Rodriguez), given the almost impossible job of keeping the floating bomb on station as chaos reigns about her. As an audience we are back on familiar ground here from classic Irwin Allen disaster movies such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure”. Who will make it, and who won’t?
A more telling question here is “Do we care?” and unfortunately for the film, the answer is “Not really”. This feels a callous thing to say when this was a real and recent event and eleven people and – as touchingly illustrated at the end of the film in tribute – many of them family men with young kids, never went home again. But film-wise, we only really get bought into the fate of Williams, whose back-story, with cute wife (Kate Hudson) and cute daughter (Stella Allen) we get to meet and sympathize with.
We get a minimalist view of Fleytas’s backstory, but only enough to provide a recurring “Mustang” reference. And that’s it. All the other characters are just two-dimensional “rig crew”: cannon-fodder for the special effects team. The screenplay by Matthew Sand and Matthew Carnahan really doesn’t deliver enough heft to get us bought in.
While the special effects are good, the sound design isn’t, with much of the dialogue being incomprehensible.
All the acting is fine, with the ever-watchable John Malkovich nicely portraying the corporate head you love to hate. Wahlberg as well delivers enough range to make you forget in this “action mode” that he was also in “Ted”. And Rodriguez as a junior lead holds her own against the big guns in what is a creditable performance in a big film role for her.
While “Lone Survivor”/”Battleship” director Peter Berg neatly provides an insight into life on and around rigs, and (via subtitles) descriptions of the drilling process which I found interesting, this comes down to the sum of a tense build up, an hour of frenetic disaster, and then a whimper of an ending. Where were some of the dramatic scenes of conflict in the congressional hearing that the film’s opening implies might come? Where are the scenes of ecological disaster and local financial ruin to add emotional angles to the story? None of this is really exploited and the whole concoction comes across a bit “meh” as a result. Not a bad film by any means. But not one I will remember in a month or two’s time.
The exploratory project is way-behind and BP are not happy. Big-wigs from the company add support to Donald Vidrine, the BP site leader, in applying mounting pressure on Harrell to press on regardless without all the necessary and time-consuming tests by Schlumberger being completed. Rogue numbers in further tests are waved away as ‘glitches’. A familiar story of corporate greed and pressure overriding the expert’s better judgment.
When disaster strikes it strikes quickly, with some spectacular and exciting special effects that leave the audience especially hot under the collar. Female support is provided by the comely Andrea Fleytas (Gina Rodriguez), given the almost impossible job of keeping the floating bomb on station as chaos reigns about her. As an audience we are back on familiar ground here from classic Irwin Allen disaster movies such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure”. Who will make it, and who won’t?
A more telling question here is “Do we care?” and unfortunately for the film, the answer is “Not really”. This feels a callous thing to say when this was a real and recent event and eleven people and – as touchingly illustrated at the end of the film in tribute – many of them family men with young kids, never went home again. But film-wise, we only really get bought into the fate of Williams, whose back-story, with cute wife (Kate Hudson) and cute daughter (Stella Allen) we get to meet and sympathize with.
We get a minimalist view of Fleytas’s backstory, but only enough to provide a recurring “Mustang” reference. And that’s it. All the other characters are just two-dimensional “rig crew”: cannon-fodder for the special effects team. The screenplay by Matthew Sand and Matthew Carnahan really doesn’t deliver enough heft to get us bought in.
While the special effects are good, the sound design isn’t, with much of the dialogue being incomprehensible.
All the acting is fine, with the ever-watchable John Malkovich nicely portraying the corporate head you love to hate. Wahlberg as well delivers enough range to make you forget in this “action mode” that he was also in “Ted”. And Rodriguez as a junior lead holds her own against the big guns in what is a creditable performance in a big film role for her.
While “Lone Survivor”/”Battleship” director Peter Berg neatly provides an insight into life on and around rigs, and (via subtitles) descriptions of the drilling process which I found interesting, this comes down to the sum of a tense build up, an hour of frenetic disaster, and then a whimper of an ending. Where were some of the dramatic scenes of conflict in the congressional hearing that the film’s opening implies might come? Where are the scenes of ecological disaster and local financial ruin to add emotional angles to the story? None of this is really exploited and the whole concoction comes across a bit “meh” as a result. Not a bad film by any means. But not one I will remember in a month or two’s time.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!