Search
Search results
Sam Rockwell recommended The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) in Movies (curated)
Robert Englund recommended Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies (curated)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966) in Movies
Nov 10, 2020
King Not Prince
Dracula: Prince of Darkness- is a slowburn film. It takes it time to build of Dracula and once Dracula shows than it really gets started. Christopher Lee isnt in this movie very much even though he is Dracula himself, but once he is one screen, he stills the show.
The plot: Four English travellers arrive at a tiny hamlet in the Carpathian Mountains and ignore warnings from the locals not to travel to Carlsbad, the domain of Count Dracula. A dark, driverless carriage arrives to take them to the sinister castle, but they discover too late that they have been lured there to provide the blood which will allow Dracula to rise from the grave once more.
Dracula does not speak in the film, save for a few hisses. According to Christopher Lee: "I didn't speak in that picture. The reason was very simple. I read the script and saw the dialogue! I said to Hammer, if you think I'm going to say any of these lines, you're very much mistaken.
Screenwriter Jimmy Sangster disputed that account in his memoir Inside Hammer, writing that "Vampires don't chat. So I didn't write him any dialogue. Christopher Lee has claimed that he refused to speak the lines he was given...So you can take your pick as to why Christopher Lee didn't have any dialogue in the picture. Or you can take my word for it. I didn't write any.
The film was made back to back with Rasputin, the Mad Monk, using many of the same sets and cast, including Lee, Shelley, Matthews and Farmer. Shelley later remembered accidentally swallowing one of her fangs in one scene, and having to drink salt water to bring it back up again because of the tight shooting schedule, as well as there being no spare set of fangs.
Its a decent Dracula film.
The plot: Four English travellers arrive at a tiny hamlet in the Carpathian Mountains and ignore warnings from the locals not to travel to Carlsbad, the domain of Count Dracula. A dark, driverless carriage arrives to take them to the sinister castle, but they discover too late that they have been lured there to provide the blood which will allow Dracula to rise from the grave once more.
Dracula does not speak in the film, save for a few hisses. According to Christopher Lee: "I didn't speak in that picture. The reason was very simple. I read the script and saw the dialogue! I said to Hammer, if you think I'm going to say any of these lines, you're very much mistaken.
Screenwriter Jimmy Sangster disputed that account in his memoir Inside Hammer, writing that "Vampires don't chat. So I didn't write him any dialogue. Christopher Lee has claimed that he refused to speak the lines he was given...So you can take your pick as to why Christopher Lee didn't have any dialogue in the picture. Or you can take my word for it. I didn't write any.
The film was made back to back with Rasputin, the Mad Monk, using many of the same sets and cast, including Lee, Shelley, Matthews and Farmer. Shelley later remembered accidentally swallowing one of her fangs in one scene, and having to drink salt water to bring it back up again because of the tight shooting schedule, as well as there being no spare set of fangs.
Its a decent Dracula film.
Lee KM Pallatina (951 KP) rated the Xbox 360 version of Bully: Scholarship Edition in Video Games
Feb 10, 2021
Visuals (5 more)
Story
Plot
Characters
Missions
Educational
No sequel (as of yet) (1 more)
Tried to re-educate me
Canis canem edit / Dog eats dog
Bully is an action-adventure video game set in a fictional boarding school, Bullworth Academy.
In stereotypical fashion the students are divided into groups, nerds, preppies, jocks etc
The game follows newcomer Jimmy Hopkins, an aggravated teenager with an attitude problem who's about to discover what its like to be on the receiving end.
Filled with errands from both teachers and students & classes to pass like maths, geography, science & Gym and a GTA style gameplay and control system, bully has overtook its original canis canem edit pre gen console release with new characters and additional missions, with an array of costumes & weapons aswell as a perfectly annoying antagonist named Gary and a beautiful ending.
Bully created a gaming cult.
developed by Rockstar Vancouver and published by Rockstar Games
released on 17 October 2006 on PS2
Developer: Rockstar Vancouver
Composer: Shawn Lee
Writer(s): Dan Houser; Jacob Krarup
Platforms: Android, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 4, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, iOS, Microsoft Windows
In stereotypical fashion the students are divided into groups, nerds, preppies, jocks etc
The game follows newcomer Jimmy Hopkins, an aggravated teenager with an attitude problem who's about to discover what its like to be on the receiving end.
Filled with errands from both teachers and students & classes to pass like maths, geography, science & Gym and a GTA style gameplay and control system, bully has overtook its original canis canem edit pre gen console release with new characters and additional missions, with an array of costumes & weapons aswell as a perfectly annoying antagonist named Gary and a beautiful ending.
Bully created a gaming cult.
developed by Rockstar Vancouver and published by Rockstar Games
released on 17 October 2006 on PS2
Developer: Rockstar Vancouver
Composer: Shawn Lee
Writer(s): Dan Houser; Jacob Krarup
Platforms: Android, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 4, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, iOS, Microsoft Windows
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Cop Out (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Jimmy Monroe (Bruce Willis) and Paul Hodges (Tracy Morgan) have been working as partners at the NYPD for the past nine years. They have a reputation at the precinct for doing things their own sporadic and wreckful way that isn't normal procedure and usually winds up getting them into hot water with the captain. A suspect is brought in for interrogation and when he finally spills the beans on a drug deal happening that afternoon, Jimmy and Paul think it's best to act on it right then and there. After their plan fails, their suspect is killed and months of work is flushed down the drain. Jimmy and Paul are suspended for 30 days without pay, which isn't good news for Jimmy since his daughter is getting married and has the typical expensive wedding of her dreams in mind. Jimmy plans on selling a collectible baseball card that could pay for his daughter's wedding and then some, but the card is stolen by some crackheads before he can get the chance. Now Jimmy's just trying to get the card back to pay for his daughter's wedding, but him and Paul, who's too distracted with his wife's possible infidelity to really concentrate on the task at hand, are thrown into something much deeper.
To tell the truth, I wasn't looking forward to this film at all. I'm a pretty big fan of most of Kevin Smith's work, but he didn't write the film. It could be argued that he did write Jersey Girl and that could be considered a bomb, but his films usually average about $25-$30 million anyway. A Kevin Smith film isn't really about bringing in a large amount of money at the box office. His charm is in his writing, especially the dialogue and interaction between characters. There's a very specific audience his films will appeal to and none of them have really branched away from that. But him not writing this one made me think, "Eh. Not sure what that'll be like since he didn't write it." When it comes to Bruce Willis, I've never talked to anyone who dislikes him entirely. There always seems to be at least one of his films everybody enjoys. Die Hard, The Fifth Element, and Sin City are just a few off the top of my head. The real buzz-killer for me though was Tracy Morgan. He's just never been funny to me. He was beyond lame on Saturday Night Live and 30 Rock has never been able to hold my attention for very long. Not to mention all the trailers for Cop Out didn't make me laugh. Thankfully though, first impressions can be so very wrong.
One of Cop Out's biggest charms is that it feels like a buddy cop comedy you've seen before, but have forgotten how much you enjoy it. The film feels similar to a 48 Hrs or Beverly Hills Cop film. Bulletproof is also a good example. Cop Out is pretty much what you expect when it comes to roles Bruce Willis chooses as it's pretty much no different than his role as John McClane on the surface, but he's a lot funnier this time around. As far as Tracy Morgan goes, the funniest thing I could remember him saying was his one line in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back ("Man... I don't know what the f--- you just said, Little Kid, but you're special man, you reached out, and you touched a brother's heart.") until this film. He was downright hilarious at times. The only person who was funnier than Morgan was Seann William Scott who stole every scene he was in. Even though Kevin Smith didn't pen the script this time around, it still feels like a Kevin Smith film. It could be due to the fact that Jason Lee has a small role in the film, but I like to think it's because Cop Out offers the same kind of comedy you'd find in a Kevin Smith film with a bit more action. It also took me forever to place Scarface from Half Baked as Poh Boy.
Cop Out is surprisingly funny and incredibly entertaining. Give this film a chance even if the trailers may not be doing anything for you. I felt the same way and wound up thoroughly enjoying the film. After a long, stressful day at work, an R-rated comedy with a lot of laughs is one of the best ways to relax and this film offers just that. It's a great film to go into with no expectations other than to just have a good time.
To tell the truth, I wasn't looking forward to this film at all. I'm a pretty big fan of most of Kevin Smith's work, but he didn't write the film. It could be argued that he did write Jersey Girl and that could be considered a bomb, but his films usually average about $25-$30 million anyway. A Kevin Smith film isn't really about bringing in a large amount of money at the box office. His charm is in his writing, especially the dialogue and interaction between characters. There's a very specific audience his films will appeal to and none of them have really branched away from that. But him not writing this one made me think, "Eh. Not sure what that'll be like since he didn't write it." When it comes to Bruce Willis, I've never talked to anyone who dislikes him entirely. There always seems to be at least one of his films everybody enjoys. Die Hard, The Fifth Element, and Sin City are just a few off the top of my head. The real buzz-killer for me though was Tracy Morgan. He's just never been funny to me. He was beyond lame on Saturday Night Live and 30 Rock has never been able to hold my attention for very long. Not to mention all the trailers for Cop Out didn't make me laugh. Thankfully though, first impressions can be so very wrong.
One of Cop Out's biggest charms is that it feels like a buddy cop comedy you've seen before, but have forgotten how much you enjoy it. The film feels similar to a 48 Hrs or Beverly Hills Cop film. Bulletproof is also a good example. Cop Out is pretty much what you expect when it comes to roles Bruce Willis chooses as it's pretty much no different than his role as John McClane on the surface, but he's a lot funnier this time around. As far as Tracy Morgan goes, the funniest thing I could remember him saying was his one line in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back ("Man... I don't know what the f--- you just said, Little Kid, but you're special man, you reached out, and you touched a brother's heart.") until this film. He was downright hilarious at times. The only person who was funnier than Morgan was Seann William Scott who stole every scene he was in. Even though Kevin Smith didn't pen the script this time around, it still feels like a Kevin Smith film. It could be due to the fact that Jason Lee has a small role in the film, but I like to think it's because Cop Out offers the same kind of comedy you'd find in a Kevin Smith film with a bit more action. It also took me forever to place Scarface from Half Baked as Poh Boy.
Cop Out is surprisingly funny and incredibly entertaining. Give this film a chance even if the trailers may not be doing anything for you. I felt the same way and wound up thoroughly enjoying the film. After a long, stressful day at work, an R-rated comedy with a lot of laughs is one of the best ways to relax and this film offers just that. It's a great film to go into with no expectations other than to just have a good time.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!