Search
Search results
Luxy -#1 Millionaire Dating
Dating, Finance and Social Networking
1.0
Rate It
App
Luxy has been featured extensively on CNN, BBC, Business Insider, CNBC, ABC, The New York Times, The...
Sarah (7800 KP) rated WandaVision in TV
Mar 7, 2021
A welcome return to the MCU
WandaVision is the latest Marvel series to hit the small screen, arriving in a flood of hype as the first official series to tie in with the rest of the MCU. Initially I hadn’t been interested in this after struggling to enjoy previous series, however after discovering that everyone I know was watching this, FOMO and the fact that we haven’t had a new MCU release since Phase 3 wrapped up with 2019’s Spider-Man: Far From Home, has prompted me to give this a go. And I’m rather glad I did.
WandaVision is set not long after the events of Endgame, and follows Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) and Vision (Paul Bettany) as they live an idyllic suburban life in the small town of Westview. However all is not as it seems; Wanda and Vision appear to be starring in their own 1950s style sitcom, as a odd couple with superpowers trying to blend in with the neighbours, including nosy Agnes (Kathryn Hahn) and committee leader Dotty (Emma Caulfield). Strange things soon start happening, and as Wanda and Vision become increasingly confused and suspicious about their new life, outside of Westfield agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park), Dr Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) and Captain Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris) are also trying to figure out what’s going on.
Setting WandaVision in the style of various popular sitcoms from the 1950s onwards is a genius move. BeWitched, I Love Lucy, Malcolm in the Middle and Modern Family to name but a few of the obvious influences on show here, and this changing sitcom style really works and blends very well with the super powered action we know and love from the MCU. I’ll admit that I’m not a massive fan of sitcoms in general and my knowledge of older ones pre-1990 is limited at best, however even I could appreciate the love and care that has gone in to crafting this. It looks amazing and feels so authentic, from everything to the set design, costumes and change in aspect ratio.
It is of course helped by the stellar performances by Elizabeth Olsen. In the MCU so far Wanda has been rather sidelined and Olsen has been given little chance to shine. However she is undoubtedly the star of WandaVision and has been given ample opportunity to show off her versatility and talents, and she certainly does. We see a side of Wanda we’ve never seen before and Olsen’s ability to transform into each decade’s sitcom character is brilliant to watch. It’s a shame then that Bettany’s Vision doesn’t quite match up. No matter the decade, Vision never really seems to change much and while he is funny on occasion, I’m not entirely convinced that seeing more of Vision is a good thing. He’s always been the aloof synthezoid and this may have made him a little too ‘human’. However that said, it was still nice to see a lot more of Bettany than we have done in a while.
Once you get over the sitcom styling, the first couple of episodes are quite slow and had it continued in this vein I may have struggling to keep interested. However in typical Marvel style, it soon picks up and immerses us into the full MCU experience I was expecting. While I don’t want to say much about the plot, from episode 3 onwards I was hooked and the story never felt drawn out, and this wasn’t just due to the short half hour episodes. Unravelling the world of WandaVision was hugely enjoyable and one particular character reappearance in episode 5 had me almost squealing in geeky happiness. The only thing WandaVision is really lacking is the humour and camaraderie that have made the rest of the MCU films into what we love best. Yes there is humour and fun, but this mostly comes from Woo and Darcy, and I think it’s noticeable that the funnier Avengers are missing.
For me, WandaVision isn’t perfect however it was still hugely enjoyable and has definitely given me a new found appreciation for Wanda as a character. And mor important of all, it’s filled a rather large Marvel shaped hole brought on by coronavirus. Bring on The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
WandaVision is set not long after the events of Endgame, and follows Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) and Vision (Paul Bettany) as they live an idyllic suburban life in the small town of Westview. However all is not as it seems; Wanda and Vision appear to be starring in their own 1950s style sitcom, as a odd couple with superpowers trying to blend in with the neighbours, including nosy Agnes (Kathryn Hahn) and committee leader Dotty (Emma Caulfield). Strange things soon start happening, and as Wanda and Vision become increasingly confused and suspicious about their new life, outside of Westfield agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park), Dr Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) and Captain Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris) are also trying to figure out what’s going on.
Setting WandaVision in the style of various popular sitcoms from the 1950s onwards is a genius move. BeWitched, I Love Lucy, Malcolm in the Middle and Modern Family to name but a few of the obvious influences on show here, and this changing sitcom style really works and blends very well with the super powered action we know and love from the MCU. I’ll admit that I’m not a massive fan of sitcoms in general and my knowledge of older ones pre-1990 is limited at best, however even I could appreciate the love and care that has gone in to crafting this. It looks amazing and feels so authentic, from everything to the set design, costumes and change in aspect ratio.
It is of course helped by the stellar performances by Elizabeth Olsen. In the MCU so far Wanda has been rather sidelined and Olsen has been given little chance to shine. However she is undoubtedly the star of WandaVision and has been given ample opportunity to show off her versatility and talents, and she certainly does. We see a side of Wanda we’ve never seen before and Olsen’s ability to transform into each decade’s sitcom character is brilliant to watch. It’s a shame then that Bettany’s Vision doesn’t quite match up. No matter the decade, Vision never really seems to change much and while he is funny on occasion, I’m not entirely convinced that seeing more of Vision is a good thing. He’s always been the aloof synthezoid and this may have made him a little too ‘human’. However that said, it was still nice to see a lot more of Bettany than we have done in a while.
Once you get over the sitcom styling, the first couple of episodes are quite slow and had it continued in this vein I may have struggling to keep interested. However in typical Marvel style, it soon picks up and immerses us into the full MCU experience I was expecting. While I don’t want to say much about the plot, from episode 3 onwards I was hooked and the story never felt drawn out, and this wasn’t just due to the short half hour episodes. Unravelling the world of WandaVision was hugely enjoyable and one particular character reappearance in episode 5 had me almost squealing in geeky happiness. The only thing WandaVision is really lacking is the humour and camaraderie that have made the rest of the MCU films into what we love best. Yes there is humour and fun, but this mostly comes from Woo and Darcy, and I think it’s noticeable that the funnier Avengers are missing.
For me, WandaVision isn’t perfect however it was still hugely enjoyable and has definitely given me a new found appreciation for Wanda as a character. And mor important of all, it’s filled a rather large Marvel shaped hole brought on by coronavirus. Bring on The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Frankie (2019) in Movies
May 24, 2021
A film about death that dies on its feet.
In "Frankie", the eponymous French movie star (played by Isabelle Huppert) is dying of cancer and gathers her complex family and friends around her for one last 'family holiday' in the picturesque Portuguese town of Sintra. We follow the events of a single day of the vacation as frictions and back-stories of the players become more evident.
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Sintra looks gorgeous: as a regular visitor to Portugal's Silver Coast, it's a place I've not yet visited. The cinematography of the region makes me want to change that.
- There are a couple of decent scenes in the movie: both involving the trustworthy Greg Kinnear: one involving him trying to sell a film idea to Frankie (who knows, but won't tell him, that she won't be around for it); and another with Kinnear and Tomei at their hotel.
Negatives:
- Where do I start.... the film is as dull as dishwater!
-- A criticism I had of the otherwise impressive "Nomadland" was that the story arc of the leading character was shallow and not very compelling. The story arc here is a bloody straight line! Virtually nothing happens in the movie and it goes nowhere. Events occur as isolated snippets in the storyline. For example, the 'loss' of an expensive bracelet is randomly lobbed into the story, but then is never referenced back in any future narrative.
-- When the ending happened (which the illustrious Mrs Movie Man referred to as a "blessing") it was a non-event. The lady behind us in the cinema exclaimed "WHAT????". And I could understand her frustration.
- The direction is distinctly lacking. Aside from the couple of decent scenes (see above), most of the shots feel like first takes, with the actors doing read-throughs of the clunky script to try to work out how to best sell the lines. "OK, time to film it for real now". But director Sachs has already shouted "Cut and Print.... now who's for some more vinos and Pastel de Nata?"! Were they aiming for some sort of naturalistic fumbling of the character's conversations? For that's how it comes across, and it's just awful.
- The script feels like a wasted opportunity. The set-up should have been a good one for an intense drama. And there are flashes (merely flashes) of potential brilliance in there: a formative step-brother/step-sister incident is based around the film "Grease", which is mirrored (either cleverly or purely through coincidence!?) in the beach-side romance of Maya (Sennia Nanua) and Portuguese holiday-maker Pedro (Manuel Sá Nogueira). And does the homosexual Michel (Pascal Greggory) have his sights on Jimmy (Brendan Gleeson)? Or Tiago? Or both? None of these potentially interesting strands ever get tied down.
- Aside from the poor script and the poor direction, some of the acting performances are unconvincing. "The Girl with all the Gifts" was a fabulous film - it made my number 2 slot of 2016! And I called out young Sennia Nanua as "one to watch for the future" as the zombie girl at the heart of the film. Here she was 17 at the time of filming. But I'm afraid I just didn't find her convincing as the moody teen. (By the way, I only single her out, since I was so impressed with her previous performance: with the exception perhaps of Kinnear, Tomei and Carloto Cotta. none of the rest of the cast consistently shine either.)
Summary Thoughts: It's a real shame that my first visit back to the cinema was such a let-down. Ira Sachs is not a director I know, but he comes with a strong reputation (for 2016's "Little Men"). But here he delivers a plain stinker. I'm afraid this movie has a word associated with it, and the word is "Avoid".
(For the full graphical review, please check out "One Mann's Movies" here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/24/frankie-a-film-about-death-that-dies-on-its-feet/. Thanks.)
Mick Hucknall recommended Kind of Blue by Miles Davis in Music (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Home Alone (1990) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
It's not Christmas until Kevin says "I've made my family disappear." In fact, it's probably one of the few that I actively watch every year, and it's one of two that I'll happily watch at any time of the year. (The other being Die Hard... don't get on my case, you know it's a Christmas film.)
On December 7th Home Alone turned 28 in the UK. 1990... just wow. I'm feeling old enough without films I grew up with being called classics.
If you haven't considered your own Home Alone plan... well, what have you been doing with your life?! As a tip, if you already have a zombie apocalypse plan in place then it's very easily adapted, you just need a little less lethal force. And it's probably best for me to remind you not to actually try this at home, because I'm not convinced that Harry and Marv would have survived. (And if we take the results from Better Watch Out then you're probably looking at some kind of murder charge.)
In December they were showing Home Alone a few times at Cineworld so it would have been rude not to go at least once to see it. I'm really getting into the classic releases on the big screen, it's so much fun. The show I picked was basically populated by adults, just two children brought along by their parents. We were all roaring with laughter, the comedy never gets old.
The music of Home Alone is instantly recognisable and yet I always forget that it's one of John Williams' epic creations. You can't hear it without thinking of the specific scene in the film it relates to, and it's certainly influences a lot of films since. Something that again I hadn't really noticed until I watched the Christmas horror film, Secret Santa (review coming soon).
It always fills me with questions though... Do all Americans have telephones with cords that are about 20 feet long? How did Buzz manage to shove that entire pizza slice in his mouth? Why did Leslie ever marry Frank? Why is Jimmy in the shop so over enthusiastic? How does Kevin manage to create all his traps in such a short amount of time? And who on Earth leaves their house that tidy when they're leaving for holiday? Especially when you consider they left in such a hurry!
The idea is such a fun one, I can see why it's so popular all this time later. Watching it more and more though you do realise that Culkin's acting was pretty bad, but that just adds to its charm.
Watching it with a group of people who already love the film really made it a better viewing. We all laughed at the amazing prat falls from Joe Pesci on the ice and the walls of the cinema caved in slightly as we all took a sharp intake of breath as Marv stood on that nail. It's genuinely more fun to roar with laughter with other fans.
It's sad to think that Home Alone could never happen these days. (Although Google did bring us an advert that gave us a peak at what might happen. I've put the video at the end of the post.) Kevin probably has several smart devices that they could contact or track, the house would also likely be equipped with state of the art surveillance and alarm systems that would have alerted someone to movement and doors opening. On the flip side though it's quite fun to think about what sort of traps Kevin could be creating with the wonders of modern technology. I'd say lets get a petition going to see that happen but while Home Alone 4 was passable I don't think we really need any more of them.
What you should do
This should be in everyone's Christmas film rotation. If you don't watch it at least once a year... well... *shakes head*.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Everyone needs those quick inventing skills, but I'm actually going to go with Kevin's other superpower... his amazing ability to make epic ice cream sundaes.
On December 7th Home Alone turned 28 in the UK. 1990... just wow. I'm feeling old enough without films I grew up with being called classics.
If you haven't considered your own Home Alone plan... well, what have you been doing with your life?! As a tip, if you already have a zombie apocalypse plan in place then it's very easily adapted, you just need a little less lethal force. And it's probably best for me to remind you not to actually try this at home, because I'm not convinced that Harry and Marv would have survived. (And if we take the results from Better Watch Out then you're probably looking at some kind of murder charge.)
In December they were showing Home Alone a few times at Cineworld so it would have been rude not to go at least once to see it. I'm really getting into the classic releases on the big screen, it's so much fun. The show I picked was basically populated by adults, just two children brought along by their parents. We were all roaring with laughter, the comedy never gets old.
The music of Home Alone is instantly recognisable and yet I always forget that it's one of John Williams' epic creations. You can't hear it without thinking of the specific scene in the film it relates to, and it's certainly influences a lot of films since. Something that again I hadn't really noticed until I watched the Christmas horror film, Secret Santa (review coming soon).
It always fills me with questions though... Do all Americans have telephones with cords that are about 20 feet long? How did Buzz manage to shove that entire pizza slice in his mouth? Why did Leslie ever marry Frank? Why is Jimmy in the shop so over enthusiastic? How does Kevin manage to create all his traps in such a short amount of time? And who on Earth leaves their house that tidy when they're leaving for holiday? Especially when you consider they left in such a hurry!
The idea is such a fun one, I can see why it's so popular all this time later. Watching it more and more though you do realise that Culkin's acting was pretty bad, but that just adds to its charm.
Watching it with a group of people who already love the film really made it a better viewing. We all laughed at the amazing prat falls from Joe Pesci on the ice and the walls of the cinema caved in slightly as we all took a sharp intake of breath as Marv stood on that nail. It's genuinely more fun to roar with laughter with other fans.
It's sad to think that Home Alone could never happen these days. (Although Google did bring us an advert that gave us a peak at what might happen. I've put the video at the end of the post.) Kevin probably has several smart devices that they could contact or track, the house would also likely be equipped with state of the art surveillance and alarm systems that would have alerted someone to movement and doors opening. On the flip side though it's quite fun to think about what sort of traps Kevin could be creating with the wonders of modern technology. I'd say lets get a petition going to see that happen but while Home Alone 4 was passable I don't think we really need any more of them.
What you should do
This should be in everyone's Christmas film rotation. If you don't watch it at least once a year... well... *shakes head*.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Everyone needs those quick inventing skills, but I'm actually going to go with Kevin's other superpower... his amazing ability to make epic ice cream sundaes.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated When the Men Were Gone in Books
May 20, 2019
There was something about the synopsis of When the Men Were Gone by Marjorie Herrera Lewis that really reeled me in. Perhaps it's because this story takes place in Brownwood, Texas which is a place I've visited and loved. Perhaps it was because it was based on a true story and about a woman rising up to a challenge to take on a man's role back in the day when things like that were unheard of. Either way, I must say that I really enjoyed this book.
Tylene Wilson loves football. In fact, football is all she's ever really known since she was a very little girl thanks to her father. When both male football coaches for the high school she works at go off to war in the Autumn of 1944, she desperately tries to find another male coach to take the job. If she doesn't, the Brownwood Lions football season will be over before it even began, and all the senior boys will more than likely end up enlisted fighting in World War II. After struggling to find a suitable coach, Tylene decides to coach the football team herself. When word gets out that a woman will be coaching a football team, people in and around Brownwood let it be known that they are very opposed to the idea. Even Tylene's close friends snub their nose at the idea. People try to get the Brownood Lions' football season cancelled, but Tylene will not let that happen if she can help it. Will Tylene be able to convince everyone that a woman can coach football just as good as a man?
I found the plot for When the Men Were Gone to be solid. As I've stated previously, this book is based on a true story. I had never heard of Tylene Wilson until I read Marjorie Herrera Lewis' book. I found it extremely interesting to have a glimpse into what Tylene Wilson may have had to go through. Lewis does a fantastic job at imagining what Tylene's life was like and what life in the small town of Brownwood would have been like around 1944. I could not find any fault with the story telling. In fact, I felt like I was transported into the book and was amidst all the action watching the story unfold. I will admit that I did not understand most of the football jargon though, but that didn't really take too much away from the story. As with most historical fiction novels, there were no major plot twists, but all my questions were answered. There was not cliffhanger ending.
I enjoyed the character of Tylene. Lewis did an amazing job at making me feel as if I knew Tylene. At times, I felt like I was Tylene. I could feel how stressed she was at times and how much her students and football meant to her. Tylene was such a strong female character. I just loved her and her determination! Moose was another character I loved. I admired his loyalty even though he was aware of the backlash. Jimmy was another interesting character to read about. I was intrigued to read about his struggles to play football for a "lady coach." On one hand, he admired Tylene and knew that she knew her stuff when it came to football. On the other hand, he was still a teenage boy open to peer pressure living in a time when woman were doing the traditional roles.
The pacing for When the Men Were Gone starts out a bit slow. There were a bunch of character names thrown out in the first few chapters which left me feeling confused about who was who. However, I quickly caught on, and the pacing picked up decently.
Trigger warnings for When the Men Were Gone include sexism, bigotry, misogyny, drunkenness, and some war violence.
All in all, When the Men Were Gone is a short read that packs a huge punch! Based on a true story, this novel has a fantastically strong female lead and plenty of drama that will definitely keep its reader hooked. I would definitely recommend When the Men Were Gone by Marjorie Herrera Lewis to those aged 15+ who enjoy football and love a story with a very strong female lead. I would give this book a 4 out of 5.
--
(Thanks to the Marjorie Herrera Lewis for providing me with a paperback of When the Men Were Gone in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Tylene Wilson loves football. In fact, football is all she's ever really known since she was a very little girl thanks to her father. When both male football coaches for the high school she works at go off to war in the Autumn of 1944, she desperately tries to find another male coach to take the job. If she doesn't, the Brownwood Lions football season will be over before it even began, and all the senior boys will more than likely end up enlisted fighting in World War II. After struggling to find a suitable coach, Tylene decides to coach the football team herself. When word gets out that a woman will be coaching a football team, people in and around Brownwood let it be known that they are very opposed to the idea. Even Tylene's close friends snub their nose at the idea. People try to get the Brownood Lions' football season cancelled, but Tylene will not let that happen if she can help it. Will Tylene be able to convince everyone that a woman can coach football just as good as a man?
I found the plot for When the Men Were Gone to be solid. As I've stated previously, this book is based on a true story. I had never heard of Tylene Wilson until I read Marjorie Herrera Lewis' book. I found it extremely interesting to have a glimpse into what Tylene Wilson may have had to go through. Lewis does a fantastic job at imagining what Tylene's life was like and what life in the small town of Brownwood would have been like around 1944. I could not find any fault with the story telling. In fact, I felt like I was transported into the book and was amidst all the action watching the story unfold. I will admit that I did not understand most of the football jargon though, but that didn't really take too much away from the story. As with most historical fiction novels, there were no major plot twists, but all my questions were answered. There was not cliffhanger ending.
I enjoyed the character of Tylene. Lewis did an amazing job at making me feel as if I knew Tylene. At times, I felt like I was Tylene. I could feel how stressed she was at times and how much her students and football meant to her. Tylene was such a strong female character. I just loved her and her determination! Moose was another character I loved. I admired his loyalty even though he was aware of the backlash. Jimmy was another interesting character to read about. I was intrigued to read about his struggles to play football for a "lady coach." On one hand, he admired Tylene and knew that she knew her stuff when it came to football. On the other hand, he was still a teenage boy open to peer pressure living in a time when woman were doing the traditional roles.
The pacing for When the Men Were Gone starts out a bit slow. There were a bunch of character names thrown out in the first few chapters which left me feeling confused about who was who. However, I quickly caught on, and the pacing picked up decently.
Trigger warnings for When the Men Were Gone include sexism, bigotry, misogyny, drunkenness, and some war violence.
All in all, When the Men Were Gone is a short read that packs a huge punch! Based on a true story, this novel has a fantastically strong female lead and plenty of drama that will definitely keep its reader hooked. I would definitely recommend When the Men Were Gone by Marjorie Herrera Lewis to those aged 15+ who enjoy football and love a story with a very strong female lead. I would give this book a 4 out of 5.
--
(Thanks to the Marjorie Herrera Lewis for providing me with a paperback of When the Men Were Gone in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
"Anything mentionable is manageable"
Tom Hanks' new movie is a film I personally struggled to fully engage with. But some I suspect will truly LOVE it's gentle and feel-good nature.
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Large and Small on screen, but just ends up middling.
So, for the first time we divided last night at the cinema. I went off to watch “Ant-Man and the Wasp” and my wife – not a Marvel fan – went to see “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again” (for the THIRD time!). Incidentally, Mamma Mia 2 seems to be the movie phenomenon of the summer, taking over from “The Greatest Showman” as the movie phenomenon of the winter. It’s been out three weeks now and the shows are still selling out, with people (mostly groups of women) being turned away at the ticket desk. I can see this one running in theatres until October, when they bring out a sing-a-long edition and it carries on running ‘til Christmas. Extraordinary.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
Writing (3 more)
No character development
Too many inconsistencies
Too many chapters
Errin Stowell's new novel series starts with Covet Not which is about a middle-aged lawyer named Sam Sparks - - - who is referred to as Sparks nearly the entire story - - - whose fiancee goes missing and he then becomes the prime suspect. Before everything happens though, readers see that Sparks spends his time trying to defend the elderly from home foreclosures as a small-time lawyer.
If this sounds like a synopsis for a John Grisham novel, you wouldn't be far off because Stowell has the potential to be the next one. This is only the first novel I've read by Stowell, but the one thing I noticed mostly in this story was the amount of inconsistencies and amateur writing mistakes; with better editing and consistency, his books could very well hit mainstream.
Also, Covet Not had so many chapters, so much so that scenes were chopped in half and made into entirely new chapters. The book ended up having 48 chapters within 158 pages. This amount could have easily been shortened and helped with the flow of the story if Stowell had just continued onwards with scenes rather then cutting them short or just skipping parts completely.
The novel starts with a man called Skinny who is enjoying his growing infamy on the dark web (he records himself murdering women then uploads it for his audience to enjoy). Here is how Stowell describes Skinny's thought process:
" Skinny took a black ski mask from the duffel bag and put it on before carrying the bag into the camera's frame and placing it near the woman. He began unpacking other items from the bag. It was slow work, deliberately slow for the camera. Skinny intended to have a before and after view for each tool. It was important to show the proper use of tools. The viewers always appreciated that. "
When we switch over to Sparks, we find him after a long day of work, speaking with a journalist named Gina, his fiancee, who is telling him one of her co-workers stole her story, but no one has heard from her in two days. Yet, they both agree that she's probably holed up with one of the producers, and instead, get into a small argument about Sparks never supporting Gina - - - a constant habit of arguing is almost every interaction between the two throughout the entire novel.
Soon after, Sparks introduces us to his uncle Jimmy, who is being housed at a retirement home: " The old man was seated in a wheelchair; his left leg had been amputated just below the knee a few years before, the result of allowing an ingrown toenail to fester to gangrene. Jimmy's barrel chest and solid upper body contrasted with his wasting legs. "
As Sparks continues to visit his uncle in the retirement home, he keeps running into a cute nurse named Darlene, who quickly sets her sights on him. She goes so far out of her way to get Sparks and Gina to separate that she sends him nude photos of herself from a burner phone. Fortunately, Sparks has bigger fish to fry when he hears over his car radio that Gina's co-worker was now being treated as a missing person case, causing Sparks to quickly jump to the conclusion that Gina possibly was responsible for it.
However, Stowell throws in an expected curveball by making our villain, Skinny, work at the retirement home. When he comes in to take care of a patient while Sparks is present, it's too easy to guess that this patient was going to end up dead soon. Sparks, expectedly, has a bad feeling about this male nurse, but dismisses it and believes that the patient died by natural causes. Life goes on.
Stowell's novel, with a great plot, was just too focused on ending the story, that after page 50, it seemed as if Stowell didn't care what happened to these characters, just as long as he finished the book. At one point, readers are told that Sparks doesn't drink alcohol, but it's never explained why he doesn't which would have given a bite of character development; another scene, Sparks finds a phone, but doesn't want to give it to police, instead he states that he has a 'friend' in the police department who can go through it as a favor, but this 'friend' is completely forgotten, as if Sparks never mentioned him, and the former is left dumbfounded as to how to get into the phone.
There's a story here and characters that could be more well-rounded, but I honestly found myself not caring the least bit about any of the characters' well-being, especially Sparks - - - someone who comes off as inept, someone who has to be told what to do in order for anything to get done - - - he's like a lost child running blindly throughout the book. The story needs to be longer with more emphasis given to mundane scenes that will allow readers to chew on a piece of Sparks' daily life because, by the end of the book, we needed a full picture of every major character, not a Jackson Pollock.
If this sounds like a synopsis for a John Grisham novel, you wouldn't be far off because Stowell has the potential to be the next one. This is only the first novel I've read by Stowell, but the one thing I noticed mostly in this story was the amount of inconsistencies and amateur writing mistakes; with better editing and consistency, his books could very well hit mainstream.
Also, Covet Not had so many chapters, so much so that scenes were chopped in half and made into entirely new chapters. The book ended up having 48 chapters within 158 pages. This amount could have easily been shortened and helped with the flow of the story if Stowell had just continued onwards with scenes rather then cutting them short or just skipping parts completely.
The novel starts with a man called Skinny who is enjoying his growing infamy on the dark web (he records himself murdering women then uploads it for his audience to enjoy). Here is how Stowell describes Skinny's thought process:
" Skinny took a black ski mask from the duffel bag and put it on before carrying the bag into the camera's frame and placing it near the woman. He began unpacking other items from the bag. It was slow work, deliberately slow for the camera. Skinny intended to have a before and after view for each tool. It was important to show the proper use of tools. The viewers always appreciated that. "
When we switch over to Sparks, we find him after a long day of work, speaking with a journalist named Gina, his fiancee, who is telling him one of her co-workers stole her story, but no one has heard from her in two days. Yet, they both agree that she's probably holed up with one of the producers, and instead, get into a small argument about Sparks never supporting Gina - - - a constant habit of arguing is almost every interaction between the two throughout the entire novel.
Soon after, Sparks introduces us to his uncle Jimmy, who is being housed at a retirement home: " The old man was seated in a wheelchair; his left leg had been amputated just below the knee a few years before, the result of allowing an ingrown toenail to fester to gangrene. Jimmy's barrel chest and solid upper body contrasted with his wasting legs. "
As Sparks continues to visit his uncle in the retirement home, he keeps running into a cute nurse named Darlene, who quickly sets her sights on him. She goes so far out of her way to get Sparks and Gina to separate that she sends him nude photos of herself from a burner phone. Fortunately, Sparks has bigger fish to fry when he hears over his car radio that Gina's co-worker was now being treated as a missing person case, causing Sparks to quickly jump to the conclusion that Gina possibly was responsible for it.
However, Stowell throws in an expected curveball by making our villain, Skinny, work at the retirement home. When he comes in to take care of a patient while Sparks is present, it's too easy to guess that this patient was going to end up dead soon. Sparks, expectedly, has a bad feeling about this male nurse, but dismisses it and believes that the patient died by natural causes. Life goes on.
Stowell's novel, with a great plot, was just too focused on ending the story, that after page 50, it seemed as if Stowell didn't care what happened to these characters, just as long as he finished the book. At one point, readers are told that Sparks doesn't drink alcohol, but it's never explained why he doesn't which would have given a bite of character development; another scene, Sparks finds a phone, but doesn't want to give it to police, instead he states that he has a 'friend' in the police department who can go through it as a favor, but this 'friend' is completely forgotten, as if Sparks never mentioned him, and the former is left dumbfounded as to how to get into the phone.
There's a story here and characters that could be more well-rounded, but I honestly found myself not caring the least bit about any of the characters' well-being, especially Sparks - - - someone who comes off as inept, someone who has to be told what to do in order for anything to get done - - - he's like a lost child running blindly throughout the book. The story needs to be longer with more emphasis given to mundane scenes that will allow readers to chew on a piece of Sparks' daily life because, by the end of the book, we needed a full picture of every major character, not a Jackson Pollock.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Great Wall (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Exercising your Damons.
Millions of people watching the Oscars would have seen Jimmy Kimmel roasting poor Matt Damon as a part of their long running ‘feud’. At one point he points out that Matt gave up the leading role in “Manchester by the Sea” to star in a “Chinese ponytail movie” that “went on to lose $80 million at the box office”. “The Great Wall” is that movie!
So is it really that bad?
Well, it’s no “Manchester by the Sea” for sure. But I don’t think it’s quite the total turkey that critics have been labelling it as either. I went to see it on a Sunday afternoon, and approaching it as a matinee bit of frothy action is a good mental state to be in.
Matt Damon plays the ponytailed-wonder William, a European mercenary travelling in 11th Century China with his colleague Tovar (Pedro Pascal) in an attempt to determine the secrets of black powder – a secret well-guarded by the Chinese. Captured by the ‘New Order’ at the Great Wall and imprisoned there by General Shao (Hanyu Zhang), William earns the respect of Shao and his beautiful warrior second-in-command Lin Mae (Tian Jing) with his bowmanship. This is almost immediately put to use by the arrival (after 60 year’s absence – a funny thing, timing, isn’t it?) of hoards of vicious creatures called Taoties. (I thought they said Tauntauns initially, so was expecting some sort of Chinese/Star Wars crossover! But no.)
Taoties who scale the wall are defeated by William who poleaxes them. (This is an attempt at brilliant humour to anyone who has already seen the film – poleaxe…. get it? POLEaxe. Oh, never mind!) Despite being a mercenary at heart, William is torn between staying and helping Lin Mae fight the beasts and fleeing with Tovar, their new chum Ballard (Willem Dafoe) and their black powder loot. (I’m sure something about Lin Mae’s tight-fitting blue armour was influential in his decision).
This is an historic film in that although in recent years there has been cross-fertilization of Chinese actors into Western films for box-office reasons (for example, in the appalling “Independence Day: Resurgence” and the much better Damon vehicle “The Martian“) this was the first truly co-produced Chinese/Hollywood feature filmed entirely in China. It might also be the last given the film’s $150 million budget and the dismal box-office!
To start with some positives, you can rely on a Chinese-set film (the film location was Qingdao) to allow the use of an army of extras and – although a whole bunch of CGI was also no doubt used – some of the battles scenes are impressive. There is a stirring choral theme by Ramin Djawadi (best known for his TV themes for “Game of Thrones” and the brilliant “Westworld”) played over silk-screen painted end titles that just make for a beautiful combination. And Tian Jing as the heroine Lin Mae is not only stunningly good-looking but also injects some much needed acting talent into the cast, where most of those involved (including Damon himself) look like they would rather be somewhere else.
And some of the action scenes are rather fun in a ‘park your brain by the door’ sort of way, including (nonsensically) cute warrior girls high-diving off the wall on bungey ropes to near certain death. While the CGI monsters are of the (yawn) over-the-top LoTR variety, their ability to swarm like locusts at the Queen’s command is also quite entertainingly rendered.
Where the movie balloon comes crashing down to earth in flames though is with the story and the screenplay – all done by three different people each, which is NEVER a good sign.
The story (by Max Brooks (“World War Z”), Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz (both on “The Last Samurai”) is plain nonsensical at times. No spoilers here, but the transition from “wall under siege” to “wall not under siege” gives the word ‘clunky’ a bad name. As another absurdity, the “New Order” seem amazed how William was able to slay one of the creatures (thanks to the poleaxing ‘McGuffin’ previously referenced) but then throughout the rest of the film he slays creatures left right and centre (McGuffin-less) through just the use of a spear or an arrow! Bonkers.
Things get worse when you add words to the actions. The screenplay by Carlo Bernard and Doug Miro (both “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time”) and Tony Gilroy (Tony Gilroy? Surely not he of all the “Bourne” films and “Rogue One” fame? The very same!) has a reading age of about an 8 year old. It feels like it has been translated into Chinese and then back again to English with Google Translate. “Is that the best you can do?” asks Tovar to William at one point. I was thinking exactly the same thing.
The combination of the cinematography and the special effects have the unfortunate effect of giving the film the veneer of a video game, but this is one where your kid-brother has stolen the controls and refuses to give them back to you.
Having had the great thrill of visiting a section of The Great Wall near Beijing, I can confirm that it is an astonishing engineering masterpiece that has to be seen to be truly believed. It ranks as one of the genuine wonders of the world. The same can not be said of this movie. Early teens might enjoy it as a mindless action flick. But otherwise best avoided until it emerges on a raining Sunday afternoon on the TV.
So is it really that bad?
Well, it’s no “Manchester by the Sea” for sure. But I don’t think it’s quite the total turkey that critics have been labelling it as either. I went to see it on a Sunday afternoon, and approaching it as a matinee bit of frothy action is a good mental state to be in.
Matt Damon plays the ponytailed-wonder William, a European mercenary travelling in 11th Century China with his colleague Tovar (Pedro Pascal) in an attempt to determine the secrets of black powder – a secret well-guarded by the Chinese. Captured by the ‘New Order’ at the Great Wall and imprisoned there by General Shao (Hanyu Zhang), William earns the respect of Shao and his beautiful warrior second-in-command Lin Mae (Tian Jing) with his bowmanship. This is almost immediately put to use by the arrival (after 60 year’s absence – a funny thing, timing, isn’t it?) of hoards of vicious creatures called Taoties. (I thought they said Tauntauns initially, so was expecting some sort of Chinese/Star Wars crossover! But no.)
Taoties who scale the wall are defeated by William who poleaxes them. (This is an attempt at brilliant humour to anyone who has already seen the film – poleaxe…. get it? POLEaxe. Oh, never mind!) Despite being a mercenary at heart, William is torn between staying and helping Lin Mae fight the beasts and fleeing with Tovar, their new chum Ballard (Willem Dafoe) and their black powder loot. (I’m sure something about Lin Mae’s tight-fitting blue armour was influential in his decision).
This is an historic film in that although in recent years there has been cross-fertilization of Chinese actors into Western films for box-office reasons (for example, in the appalling “Independence Day: Resurgence” and the much better Damon vehicle “The Martian“) this was the first truly co-produced Chinese/Hollywood feature filmed entirely in China. It might also be the last given the film’s $150 million budget and the dismal box-office!
To start with some positives, you can rely on a Chinese-set film (the film location was Qingdao) to allow the use of an army of extras and – although a whole bunch of CGI was also no doubt used – some of the battles scenes are impressive. There is a stirring choral theme by Ramin Djawadi (best known for his TV themes for “Game of Thrones” and the brilliant “Westworld”) played over silk-screen painted end titles that just make for a beautiful combination. And Tian Jing as the heroine Lin Mae is not only stunningly good-looking but also injects some much needed acting talent into the cast, where most of those involved (including Damon himself) look like they would rather be somewhere else.
And some of the action scenes are rather fun in a ‘park your brain by the door’ sort of way, including (nonsensically) cute warrior girls high-diving off the wall on bungey ropes to near certain death. While the CGI monsters are of the (yawn) over-the-top LoTR variety, their ability to swarm like locusts at the Queen’s command is also quite entertainingly rendered.
Where the movie balloon comes crashing down to earth in flames though is with the story and the screenplay – all done by three different people each, which is NEVER a good sign.
The story (by Max Brooks (“World War Z”), Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz (both on “The Last Samurai”) is plain nonsensical at times. No spoilers here, but the transition from “wall under siege” to “wall not under siege” gives the word ‘clunky’ a bad name. As another absurdity, the “New Order” seem amazed how William was able to slay one of the creatures (thanks to the poleaxing ‘McGuffin’ previously referenced) but then throughout the rest of the film he slays creatures left right and centre (McGuffin-less) through just the use of a spear or an arrow! Bonkers.
Things get worse when you add words to the actions. The screenplay by Carlo Bernard and Doug Miro (both “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time”) and Tony Gilroy (Tony Gilroy? Surely not he of all the “Bourne” films and “Rogue One” fame? The very same!) has a reading age of about an 8 year old. It feels like it has been translated into Chinese and then back again to English with Google Translate. “Is that the best you can do?” asks Tovar to William at one point. I was thinking exactly the same thing.
The combination of the cinematography and the special effects have the unfortunate effect of giving the film the veneer of a video game, but this is one where your kid-brother has stolen the controls and refuses to give them back to you.
Having had the great thrill of visiting a section of The Great Wall near Beijing, I can confirm that it is an astonishing engineering masterpiece that has to be seen to be truly believed. It ranks as one of the genuine wonders of the world. The same can not be said of this movie. Early teens might enjoy it as a mindless action flick. But otherwise best avoided until it emerges on a raining Sunday afternoon on the TV.