Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Rocketman (2019) in Movies
May 22, 2019
Rocketman isn't the standard music biopic movie you're used to - the formulaic rise to fame and fortune, accompanied by drug and alcohol misuse and a troubled, lonely life. The story of Elton John, the musician whose life this movie is about, certainly does have all of those elements, but Rocketman presents them in such a wonderfully crazy and original way. Weaving classic songs into the storytelling and providing a wonderfully welcome and heart warming fantasy element to the movie.
The story begins with a middle-aged Elton (Taron Egerton), dressed in one of his trademark outrageous outfits (this time a winged devil costume, complete with horns!), as he marches into a group therapy session and informs everyone that he is addicted to cocaine, sex and prescription drugs. “For as long as I can remember I’ve hated myself” he continues, before starting to recall his childhood years. He sees his younger self across the room, looking at him as the first song begins. It's more like something out of a musical though, with both versions of Elton involved in the singing and dancing, not to mention the members of the therapy group too!
That therapy room is where much of the story is told, rejoining Elton at various stages of his recovery as he recounts the moments of his life that shaped him and brought him to the point he's at now. We initially join the younger version of Elton that we saw in the opening number, or Reggie Dwight as he was known back then, tinkling out his first few notes on the family piano and never feeling fully accepted by his family. His dad is uncaring and cold towards him, never once giving him the simple hug he craves, while his mum (brilliantly played by Bryce Dallas Howard) eventually proves herself to be not that much better than dad either as time goes on. Only Reggie's Nan seems to offer him any kind of support and encouragement, and it's not long before Reggie is receiving piano lessons, attending music school and playing small gigs in the local pubs.
Fast forward a few years to Elton as a young man (played by Egerton from now on), as he starts to get noticed by the right people in those pub gigs. He's paired with Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell) where they form the partnership which will last a lifetime - Bernie providing the lyrics, Elton providing the music and the performance. They form a strong friendship, and it's fun to see them growing together as artists, revealing how such classic songs came from such simple beginnings. It's not long before Elton is on the fast track to becoming a global superstar, performing at the Troubadour club in LA where he immediately wows the audience. It's there that he catches the eye of John Reid (Richard Madden), who he starts a disastrous romantic relationship with, as well as taking him on as manager.
From there the movie becomes a rollercoaster ride of emotions, carried along by an outstanding, and I'd say Oscar worthy, performance from Egerton. Singing all of the songs, and portraying perfectly the highs and lows of Elton John's incredible career. As mentioned previously, he's also supported by what is an amazing cast, all sharing the singing duties. Familiar songs that give extra meaning and insight as they seamlessly integrate within the story. And they're also completely bonkers at times too! A song performed underwater, a song where everyone in the bar levitates off the ground, Elton firing up into the sky like a rocket and exploding like a firework! Despite all of this, the movie still manages to feel relatable and believable and is a real joy to watch.
The story begins with a middle-aged Elton (Taron Egerton), dressed in one of his trademark outrageous outfits (this time a winged devil costume, complete with horns!), as he marches into a group therapy session and informs everyone that he is addicted to cocaine, sex and prescription drugs. “For as long as I can remember I’ve hated myself” he continues, before starting to recall his childhood years. He sees his younger self across the room, looking at him as the first song begins. It's more like something out of a musical though, with both versions of Elton involved in the singing and dancing, not to mention the members of the therapy group too!
That therapy room is where much of the story is told, rejoining Elton at various stages of his recovery as he recounts the moments of his life that shaped him and brought him to the point he's at now. We initially join the younger version of Elton that we saw in the opening number, or Reggie Dwight as he was known back then, tinkling out his first few notes on the family piano and never feeling fully accepted by his family. His dad is uncaring and cold towards him, never once giving him the simple hug he craves, while his mum (brilliantly played by Bryce Dallas Howard) eventually proves herself to be not that much better than dad either as time goes on. Only Reggie's Nan seems to offer him any kind of support and encouragement, and it's not long before Reggie is receiving piano lessons, attending music school and playing small gigs in the local pubs.
Fast forward a few years to Elton as a young man (played by Egerton from now on), as he starts to get noticed by the right people in those pub gigs. He's paired with Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell) where they form the partnership which will last a lifetime - Bernie providing the lyrics, Elton providing the music and the performance. They form a strong friendship, and it's fun to see them growing together as artists, revealing how such classic songs came from such simple beginnings. It's not long before Elton is on the fast track to becoming a global superstar, performing at the Troubadour club in LA where he immediately wows the audience. It's there that he catches the eye of John Reid (Richard Madden), who he starts a disastrous romantic relationship with, as well as taking him on as manager.
From there the movie becomes a rollercoaster ride of emotions, carried along by an outstanding, and I'd say Oscar worthy, performance from Egerton. Singing all of the songs, and portraying perfectly the highs and lows of Elton John's incredible career. As mentioned previously, he's also supported by what is an amazing cast, all sharing the singing duties. Familiar songs that give extra meaning and insight as they seamlessly integrate within the story. And they're also completely bonkers at times too! A song performed underwater, a song where everyone in the bar levitates off the ground, Elton firing up into the sky like a rocket and exploding like a firework! Despite all of this, the movie still manages to feel relatable and believable and is a real joy to watch.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Encanto (2021) in Movies
Dec 28, 2021
Fun Family Friendly Film with GREAT Music
The good thing about travelling by plane over the Holidays is that it is an opportunity to catch up on Movies that were missed. Such is the case with the Disney Animation Film ENCANTO - a film that “came and went” earlier this fall.
And…I’m glad I saw it, for ENCANTO is the family-friendly, fun and heart warming film that is perfect Holiday viewing for the entire family.
Set in the magical Columbian village of ENCANTO, this film tells the tale of a family that are all given magical powers to use to help their village survive and thrive…all, that is, except for Mirabel who becomes somewhat of an outcast with her family for not having a magical gift bestowed upon her.
At first glance, this Animated Musical might remind people of the PIXAR animated film COCO from a few years ago. But that is like saying THE LITTLE MERMAID reminds you of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST or CINDERELLA reminds your of SLEEPING BEAUTY. While there are some striking similarities to COCO, ENCANTO is it’s own film and serves the story of the importance of family very, very well.
Stephanie Beatriz (TV’s BROOKLYN 99) is terrific as the voice of Mirabel, she has that headstrong, optimistic bent to her that many other Disney Princesses/Heroines (MOANA, Anna from FROZEN and Rapunzel in TANGLED are other examples of this). Mirabel is a solid addition to this group, she is a winning personality to spend time with.
The rest of the voices of the family fill the characters well, with the obvious standout being the great John Leguizamo (to tell you what character he voice is to spoil the film). Suffice it to say he is great.
The Direction by Jared Bush and Byron Howard (the Directors of another under-the-radar Disney Animated film, ZOOTOPIA) keep the events flowing and the many, many family members clear so as not to confuse the audience (this is no small feat), they know what they are doing and it shows. The only real mark I have against the movie is that the ending fell just a bit flat for me, but that is just a quibble in a really fine Animated movie.
And then…there is the music.
I did not realize that this film was a musical and was pleasantly tapping my toes on the airplane to the many musical numbers. I made the mental note to find out who wrote these fine tunes and was not too surprised to find out it was the one and only Lin-Manuel Miranda (Broadway’s HAMILTON). This musical genius has done it again.
ENCANTO is streaming on Disney+ so if you have this service and are looking for a fun, family-friendly way to pass a couple of hours, look no further than ENCANTO.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…I’m glad I saw it, for ENCANTO is the family-friendly, fun and heart warming film that is perfect Holiday viewing for the entire family.
Set in the magical Columbian village of ENCANTO, this film tells the tale of a family that are all given magical powers to use to help their village survive and thrive…all, that is, except for Mirabel who becomes somewhat of an outcast with her family for not having a magical gift bestowed upon her.
At first glance, this Animated Musical might remind people of the PIXAR animated film COCO from a few years ago. But that is like saying THE LITTLE MERMAID reminds you of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST or CINDERELLA reminds your of SLEEPING BEAUTY. While there are some striking similarities to COCO, ENCANTO is it’s own film and serves the story of the importance of family very, very well.
Stephanie Beatriz (TV’s BROOKLYN 99) is terrific as the voice of Mirabel, she has that headstrong, optimistic bent to her that many other Disney Princesses/Heroines (MOANA, Anna from FROZEN and Rapunzel in TANGLED are other examples of this). Mirabel is a solid addition to this group, she is a winning personality to spend time with.
The rest of the voices of the family fill the characters well, with the obvious standout being the great John Leguizamo (to tell you what character he voice is to spoil the film). Suffice it to say he is great.
The Direction by Jared Bush and Byron Howard (the Directors of another under-the-radar Disney Animated film, ZOOTOPIA) keep the events flowing and the many, many family members clear so as not to confuse the audience (this is no small feat), they know what they are doing and it shows. The only real mark I have against the movie is that the ending fell just a bit flat for me, but that is just a quibble in a really fine Animated movie.
And then…there is the music.
I did not realize that this film was a musical and was pleasantly tapping my toes on the airplane to the many musical numbers. I made the mental note to find out who wrote these fine tunes and was not too surprised to find out it was the one and only Lin-Manuel Miranda (Broadway’s HAMILTON). This musical genius has done it again.
ENCANTO is streaming on Disney+ so if you have this service and are looking for a fun, family-friendly way to pass a couple of hours, look no further than ENCANTO.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Beatles: Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A film worth getting into your life.
Reviewing documentaries is always a bit tricky, since it is often difficult to separate the quality of the film making from your emotional attachment to the subject material. In my case, my early life was saturated with Beatlemania. Although I was only 2 year’s old in 1963 at the start of it all, I had three older siblings who ramped up the excitement so much that it permeated my young mind. I still remember being vehemently “Sssshhed” since I was making too much noise during the live and ground-breaking “All you need is Love” telecast!
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Killer (2023) in Movies
Nov 18, 2023
Interesting...but ends with a "thud"
Director David Fincher has a strong track record of interesting films…SE7EN, FIGHT CLUB, THE SOCIAL NETWORK (to name a few). Michael Fassbender is one of the more interesting actors working today…HUNGER, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, PROMETHEUS (to name a few). So when these 2 got together to make a film of the graphic novel THE KILLER, anticipation was high.
Lower those expectations just a bit and you’ll be rewarded by an enteraning (enough) film/character study that is…interesting, but lands with a “thud”.
Based on the aforementioned graphic novel that was written by Alexis Nolent and illustrated by Luc Jacamon, THE KILLER follows the titular character after a hit has gone wrong and he must fight to save his life, while seeking vengeance on those that wronged him.
It is a “thinking man’s” hit-man film set in the seedy underground of a high-priced assassin. In lesser hands this could be a lesser John Wick knock-off, but in Fincher’s skilled fingers, THE KILLER is an intriguing character study.
It helps that the central figure of this film is portrayed by Michael Fassbender who is fascinating to watch even if he is just sitting around looking out a window. And this is good…for he spends the first 20 minutes of this film…sitting around looking out a window (waiting for his target to show up). It is a unique choice in a film such as this and with Fincher’s direction and Fassbender’s performance, it works more often than it doesn’t.
After the initial hit goes awry, sending Fassbender’s character on a global manhunt, the rest of the film is a series of one-on-one scenes with THE KILLER versus THE LAWYER (Charles Parnell - who is turning into a pretty reliable “that guy” character actor). THE KILLER versus THE BEAST (in what is the best action scene in the film) and THE KILLER versus THE CLIENT (portrayed by Arliss Howard in another portrayal of an “a-hole rich guy”). All of these scenes work for the most part, but none of them “knock it out of the park”.
The only scene that comes close to knocking it out of the park is THE KILLER versus THE EXPERT and that is because The Expert is played by Tilda Swinton and has 90% of the dialogue in the scene. It is always exciting to see 2 marvelous performers sitting across a table, playing off each other and Fassbender and Swinton (especially) shine in this portion of the film.
The problem with THE KILLER is that the separate scenes do not add up to a cohesive whole - and certainly the parts are more interesting than the final procduct and that blame needs to be placed at the feet of Director Fincher who should have been able to blend these scenes together better. He isn’t helped by a finale scene that lands with a thud…on purpose. But a “thud” is a “thud” and that is a tricky way to end the film.
And…in the case of THE KILLER…Fincher (and Fassbender) did not build up enough equity heading into the final scene that one can forgive “the thud”….though it is still a pretty good film. The “thud” pulls this film down from “really good” (not great) to just…”good”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Lower those expectations just a bit and you’ll be rewarded by an enteraning (enough) film/character study that is…interesting, but lands with a “thud”.
Based on the aforementioned graphic novel that was written by Alexis Nolent and illustrated by Luc Jacamon, THE KILLER follows the titular character after a hit has gone wrong and he must fight to save his life, while seeking vengeance on those that wronged him.
It is a “thinking man’s” hit-man film set in the seedy underground of a high-priced assassin. In lesser hands this could be a lesser John Wick knock-off, but in Fincher’s skilled fingers, THE KILLER is an intriguing character study.
It helps that the central figure of this film is portrayed by Michael Fassbender who is fascinating to watch even if he is just sitting around looking out a window. And this is good…for he spends the first 20 minutes of this film…sitting around looking out a window (waiting for his target to show up). It is a unique choice in a film such as this and with Fincher’s direction and Fassbender’s performance, it works more often than it doesn’t.
After the initial hit goes awry, sending Fassbender’s character on a global manhunt, the rest of the film is a series of one-on-one scenes with THE KILLER versus THE LAWYER (Charles Parnell - who is turning into a pretty reliable “that guy” character actor). THE KILLER versus THE BEAST (in what is the best action scene in the film) and THE KILLER versus THE CLIENT (portrayed by Arliss Howard in another portrayal of an “a-hole rich guy”). All of these scenes work for the most part, but none of them “knock it out of the park”.
The only scene that comes close to knocking it out of the park is THE KILLER versus THE EXPERT and that is because The Expert is played by Tilda Swinton and has 90% of the dialogue in the scene. It is always exciting to see 2 marvelous performers sitting across a table, playing off each other and Fassbender and Swinton (especially) shine in this portion of the film.
The problem with THE KILLER is that the separate scenes do not add up to a cohesive whole - and certainly the parts are more interesting than the final procduct and that blame needs to be placed at the feet of Director Fincher who should have been able to blend these scenes together better. He isn’t helped by a finale scene that lands with a thud…on purpose. But a “thud” is a “thud” and that is a tricky way to end the film.
And…in the case of THE KILLER…Fincher (and Fassbender) did not build up enough equity heading into the final scene that one can forgive “the thud”….though it is still a pretty good film. The “thud” pulls this film down from “really good” (not great) to just…”good”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Sabotage (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Action icon Arnold Schwarzenegger is back in “Sabotage”, with an ensemble film that is part thriller, part action, and part western. Schwarzenegger plays John Breacher, the leader of a top D.E.A. squad who take on the worst of the criminal underworld in the war on drugs.
Breacher has become a celebrity for his exploits as the numerous pictures of him with former Presidents attest to. It is learned that after bringing down a drug Kingpin, Breacher had his wife and son kidnapped in retaliation and he was forced to watch them tortured to death via video for refusing to turn himself over to the kidnappers for retaliation.
The brutal and drawn out nature of the crimes has haunted Breacher and as the film opens he is leading his team on a raid of a mansion filled with cash and bad guys.
His team is very efficient at what they do but have both physical and mental scars from their experiences. The raid goes almost as planned, but Breacher and his team are accused of taking ten million dollars from the crime scene after the raid as it was learned that the F.B.I. were also keeping tabs on the locale.
Six months pass and despite being an outcast, Breacher and his team are returned to active duty after the closure of the investigation against them. With most of his agency convinced someone on the team has taken the money, Breacher and company celebrate their return to active status.
Their celebration is short-lived when members of the team start being killed in brutal fashion. The fact that highly trained operatives are able to be killed in this manner has raised some red flags especially to local detective Brentwood (Olivia Williams), who thinks there may be more to the cases than first thought. The fact that the D.E.A. is not helping with her investigation and the fact that the bodies are starting to pile up lead her and Breacher into an uneasy alliance to find the killer(s).
What follows is a methodical, but at times action packed film that results in an ending that is disappointing compared to what it could have been.
After the final revelation was revealed, it seemed to me that the methods taken did not match up well with the timeline, opportunity, and motivations of the characters involved. The more I thought about the film the more I was convinced that there were easier ways for things to be accomplished or explained and that perhaps there were too many Red Herrings along the way.
The cast is the film is top notch from Terrance Howard, Sam Worthington, Joe Manganiello and Josh Holloway, and this is one of Schwarzenegger’s most mature and diverse roles in memory. I liked the ambiguity of his character as he was not the one man killing machine and unstoppable force of nature that he has portrayed countless times before.
Breacher is a haunted and troubled man who is highly capable at what he does and enjoys doing it even though it has cost him everything he holds dear. The film seemed to be unable to find an identity as it started out as a very gripping drama that had you guessing but took some turns that strained to be credible and became a conglomeration of action clichés and western nostalgia which is a shame as the cast and premise offered so much more as did the first part of the film.
Director David Ayer keeps things moving along and is to be praised for not letting the action overshadow the characters but sadly the final act of the film comes up short and undermines what could have been a classic mix of action and drama.
The film fails as an effective action film or drama which results in an at times enjoyable but largely forgettable effort.
http://sknr.net/2014/03/28/sabotage/
Breacher has become a celebrity for his exploits as the numerous pictures of him with former Presidents attest to. It is learned that after bringing down a drug Kingpin, Breacher had his wife and son kidnapped in retaliation and he was forced to watch them tortured to death via video for refusing to turn himself over to the kidnappers for retaliation.
The brutal and drawn out nature of the crimes has haunted Breacher and as the film opens he is leading his team on a raid of a mansion filled with cash and bad guys.
His team is very efficient at what they do but have both physical and mental scars from their experiences. The raid goes almost as planned, but Breacher and his team are accused of taking ten million dollars from the crime scene after the raid as it was learned that the F.B.I. were also keeping tabs on the locale.
Six months pass and despite being an outcast, Breacher and his team are returned to active duty after the closure of the investigation against them. With most of his agency convinced someone on the team has taken the money, Breacher and company celebrate their return to active status.
Their celebration is short-lived when members of the team start being killed in brutal fashion. The fact that highly trained operatives are able to be killed in this manner has raised some red flags especially to local detective Brentwood (Olivia Williams), who thinks there may be more to the cases than first thought. The fact that the D.E.A. is not helping with her investigation and the fact that the bodies are starting to pile up lead her and Breacher into an uneasy alliance to find the killer(s).
What follows is a methodical, but at times action packed film that results in an ending that is disappointing compared to what it could have been.
After the final revelation was revealed, it seemed to me that the methods taken did not match up well with the timeline, opportunity, and motivations of the characters involved. The more I thought about the film the more I was convinced that there were easier ways for things to be accomplished or explained and that perhaps there were too many Red Herrings along the way.
The cast is the film is top notch from Terrance Howard, Sam Worthington, Joe Manganiello and Josh Holloway, and this is one of Schwarzenegger’s most mature and diverse roles in memory. I liked the ambiguity of his character as he was not the one man killing machine and unstoppable force of nature that he has portrayed countless times before.
Breacher is a haunted and troubled man who is highly capable at what he does and enjoys doing it even though it has cost him everything he holds dear. The film seemed to be unable to find an identity as it started out as a very gripping drama that had you guessing but took some turns that strained to be credible and became a conglomeration of action clichés and western nostalgia which is a shame as the cast and premise offered so much more as did the first part of the film.
Director David Ayer keeps things moving along and is to be praised for not letting the action overshadow the characters but sadly the final act of the film comes up short and undermines what could have been a classic mix of action and drama.
The film fails as an effective action film or drama which results in an at times enjoyable but largely forgettable effort.
http://sknr.net/2014/03/28/sabotage/
Darren (1599 KP) rated American Graffiti (1973) in Movies
Nov 21, 2019
Thoughts on American Graffiti
Characters – Curt has always enjoyed his time on the strip, he knows everybody and is one of the most popular guys around, he was due to head of the college, but hasn’t made his mind up yet, despite it needing to be read for his next day, he ends up trying to spend his time chasing a mysterious woman around town all night. Steve has always planned his life out, he is going off to college and he is ready to make his relationship more open while they are separated, here he gets to learn about his relationship even if his best friend might not be joining him in college. John is the friend that has always been known for his ability with cars, he has a reputation around town with the police following him around and now he is starting to see the future where his friends are doing a lot more than him and gets stuck with a younger girl for the night, where he starts to see a brighter side to his future. Terry has always been the butt of most of the jokes between the friends, now he gets Steve’s car to look after he spends the night trying to find himself a woman and impress her with his lines.
Performances – When we look at the cast, Richard Dreyfuss is great through the film showing us a character that can get plenty of laughs and is quick on his feet. Ron Howard brings the character we know him for is always going to be easy for him to play. Paul Le Mat brings the typical bad boy to life that does show how he bought us a level of sympathy to the character. Charles Martin Smith brings the geeky sounding character out which become one of the most popular characters in these teen comedies for years to come.
Story – The story here follows four friends on the last day of summer before college is due to start, we see how the four have a different adventure on this night, which will help them discover what they want next in their lives. This is a story that shows just how difficult life is when you take the next step, leaving school is one of the first and biggest anybody will take, with the uncertainty being there for everybody involved, part of you will want to stay close to what you already had, while other sides of this will see you wanting to see what is next. This story mixes all of this together through the film with little effort and makes you believe these people could be real, while certain aspects will have dated here, with a new generation, back n the 1970s this would have been the idea of the house party in the 80s or 90s and wild adventure the modern youth would be having.
Comedy – The comedy in this film would be right up there with any teen comedies, it would have gotten more laughs for when it was released, rather than the ones you would expect to see now.
Settings – The film is set in one hang out location known as the strip, this will be the location where we get all the hang outs you would expect for teens in this generation.
Scene of the Movie – Terry’s attempts to get boozes.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The world involved does seem to have dated.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderful look at teenage life in the 70s it shows us just how close the friendships were, how hard the changes coming were and just what was left for the people in life.
Overall: Beautiful Look at the 70s.
Rating
Characters – Curt has always enjoyed his time on the strip, he knows everybody and is one of the most popular guys around, he was due to head of the college, but hasn’t made his mind up yet, despite it needing to be read for his next day, he ends up trying to spend his time chasing a mysterious woman around town all night. Steve has always planned his life out, he is going off to college and he is ready to make his relationship more open while they are separated, here he gets to learn about his relationship even if his best friend might not be joining him in college. John is the friend that has always been known for his ability with cars, he has a reputation around town with the police following him around and now he is starting to see the future where his friends are doing a lot more than him and gets stuck with a younger girl for the night, where he starts to see a brighter side to his future. Terry has always been the butt of most of the jokes between the friends, now he gets Steve’s car to look after he spends the night trying to find himself a woman and impress her with his lines.
Performances – When we look at the cast, Richard Dreyfuss is great through the film showing us a character that can get plenty of laughs and is quick on his feet. Ron Howard brings the character we know him for is always going to be easy for him to play. Paul Le Mat brings the typical bad boy to life that does show how he bought us a level of sympathy to the character. Charles Martin Smith brings the geeky sounding character out which become one of the most popular characters in these teen comedies for years to come.
Story – The story here follows four friends on the last day of summer before college is due to start, we see how the four have a different adventure on this night, which will help them discover what they want next in their lives. This is a story that shows just how difficult life is when you take the next step, leaving school is one of the first and biggest anybody will take, with the uncertainty being there for everybody involved, part of you will want to stay close to what you already had, while other sides of this will see you wanting to see what is next. This story mixes all of this together through the film with little effort and makes you believe these people could be real, while certain aspects will have dated here, with a new generation, back n the 1970s this would have been the idea of the house party in the 80s or 90s and wild adventure the modern youth would be having.
Comedy – The comedy in this film would be right up there with any teen comedies, it would have gotten more laughs for when it was released, rather than the ones you would expect to see now.
Settings – The film is set in one hang out location known as the strip, this will be the location where we get all the hang outs you would expect for teens in this generation.
Scene of the Movie – Terry’s attempts to get boozes.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The world involved does seem to have dated.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderful look at teenage life in the 70s it shows us just how close the friendships were, how hard the changes coming were and just what was left for the people in life.
Overall: Beautiful Look at the 70s.
Rating
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Star Wars goes western
Star Wars has had somewhat of a chequered history since turning over to the dark side, sorry, I mean Disney. You see, since LucasFilm was acquired by the House of Mouse there has been one Star Wars movie each year. The Force Awakens was good, if a little safe and The Last Jedi was brilliant, but incredibly divisive.
What’s been more exciting to see evolve however, is the Star Wars Story movies. Rogue One became my 2nd favourite film in the series after Empire with Godzilla director, Gareth Edwards proving to be a force to be reckoned with. Then, LEGO Movie directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller were hired to direct a Han Solo origins story and that got people very excited indeed.Fast forward a few months and they were unceremoniously dumped from the project during filming with veteran director Ron Howard brought in as their replacements. Howard’s name is a concerning one. He’s become something of a director-for-hire over the last decade: competent but not exemplary. Phew! Keeping up? Good.
The resulting film has been plagued by ballooning costs, expensive reshoots and rumours of on-set acting classes for some of the stars. It’s finally here, but are we looking at the first new generation Star Wars failure?
Young Han Solo (Alden Ehrenreich) finds adventure when he joins a gang of galactic smugglers, including a 196-year-old Wookie named Chewbacca. Indebted to the gangster Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany), the crew devises a daring plan to travel to the mining planet Kessel to steal a batch of valuable coaxium. In need of a fast ship, Solo meets Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), the suave owner of the perfect vessel for the dangerous mission — the Millennium Falcon.
Thankfully, and by nothing short of a miracle, Solo: A Star Wars Story is engaging, packed full of nostalgia and features an incredible ensemble cast. It’s not perfect by any means, but we’ll get on to that later.
Billed as a heist meets western kinda movie, Solo hits all the right beats to carefully straddle the line between those two genres. The writing is snappy, genuinely funny and engaging with all the cast members doing their fair share of the heavy lifting. Emilia Clarke is great as Solo’s love interest Qi’Ra and Woody Harrelson is as charming as ever in a role that could’ve been serviced by many 50-something actors who could do fancy stuff with a blaster.
It is in Donald Glover however that the film truly belongs. His Lando Calrissian is absolutely, unequivocally sublime. He channels his counterpart from Empire beautifully and you do feel like you’re watching a young Billy Dee Williams in action.
There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb
In fact, there are only two of the main cast members that fail to register in the way that they had clearly intended to do. One is Paul Bettany’s Dryden Vos; the Star Wars universe’s first real villain failure. Alas, it’s not the fault of Bettany. The part was originally written for a CGI motion capture performance but was changed at the last minute with reshoots being added for Bettany’s scenes.
The other, unfortunately, is Han Solo himself. Alden Ehrenreich definitely makes all the right noises. He’s cocky, arrogant, self-assured, just like Harrison Ford, but, for all of his effort, he just isn’t doing a Harrison Ford in this film. Now, that doesn’t ruin the movie as much as you might think it does, as it’s easy to just go along for the ride, but at no point in Solo’s run time did I think we were watching a young Harrison Ford in action. Ehrenreich is good, he’s just not that good.
Thankfully, what is that good is the cinematography. The action is staged beautifully, though I’m unsure as to whether this is Howard’s influence or the previous directors. There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb. The CGI is nicely integrated with animatronics and props, just like a Star Wars movie should be, and each of the set pieces is brimming with excitement.
One sequence in particular, involving the liberation of some slaves is really nicely filmed with a great colour palate and the much-marketed monorail heist is edge-of-your-seat stuff with cracking CGI.
Pacing is generally good, and at 135 minutes that is no easy win though things do drag a little about half way through. What is pleasing however, is how the bromance between Chewbacca and Han takes a backseat up until about 40 minutes before the end in which a familiar theme plays over the action: it’s spine-tingling in its simplicity. In fact, John Powell’s score is rousing when it needs to be and beautifully put together. A real match for John Williams’ classic orchestral soundtrack.
Overall, Solo: A Star Wars Story is better than it had any right to be. Whenever a film goes through such a turbulent production process, it’s always concerning that the final product will be somehow lesser in quality, but this isn’t the case here. It’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as a continuation of the new Star Wars mantra under Disney, it’s a fitting entry and a great addition to the series.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/24/solo-a-star-wars-story-review-stars-wars-goes-western/
What’s been more exciting to see evolve however, is the Star Wars Story movies. Rogue One became my 2nd favourite film in the series after Empire with Godzilla director, Gareth Edwards proving to be a force to be reckoned with. Then, LEGO Movie directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller were hired to direct a Han Solo origins story and that got people very excited indeed.Fast forward a few months and they were unceremoniously dumped from the project during filming with veteran director Ron Howard brought in as their replacements. Howard’s name is a concerning one. He’s become something of a director-for-hire over the last decade: competent but not exemplary. Phew! Keeping up? Good.
The resulting film has been plagued by ballooning costs, expensive reshoots and rumours of on-set acting classes for some of the stars. It’s finally here, but are we looking at the first new generation Star Wars failure?
Young Han Solo (Alden Ehrenreich) finds adventure when he joins a gang of galactic smugglers, including a 196-year-old Wookie named Chewbacca. Indebted to the gangster Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany), the crew devises a daring plan to travel to the mining planet Kessel to steal a batch of valuable coaxium. In need of a fast ship, Solo meets Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), the suave owner of the perfect vessel for the dangerous mission — the Millennium Falcon.
Thankfully, and by nothing short of a miracle, Solo: A Star Wars Story is engaging, packed full of nostalgia and features an incredible ensemble cast. It’s not perfect by any means, but we’ll get on to that later.
Billed as a heist meets western kinda movie, Solo hits all the right beats to carefully straddle the line between those two genres. The writing is snappy, genuinely funny and engaging with all the cast members doing their fair share of the heavy lifting. Emilia Clarke is great as Solo’s love interest Qi’Ra and Woody Harrelson is as charming as ever in a role that could’ve been serviced by many 50-something actors who could do fancy stuff with a blaster.
It is in Donald Glover however that the film truly belongs. His Lando Calrissian is absolutely, unequivocally sublime. He channels his counterpart from Empire beautifully and you do feel like you’re watching a young Billy Dee Williams in action.
There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb
In fact, there are only two of the main cast members that fail to register in the way that they had clearly intended to do. One is Paul Bettany’s Dryden Vos; the Star Wars universe’s first real villain failure. Alas, it’s not the fault of Bettany. The part was originally written for a CGI motion capture performance but was changed at the last minute with reshoots being added for Bettany’s scenes.
The other, unfortunately, is Han Solo himself. Alden Ehrenreich definitely makes all the right noises. He’s cocky, arrogant, self-assured, just like Harrison Ford, but, for all of his effort, he just isn’t doing a Harrison Ford in this film. Now, that doesn’t ruin the movie as much as you might think it does, as it’s easy to just go along for the ride, but at no point in Solo’s run time did I think we were watching a young Harrison Ford in action. Ehrenreich is good, he’s just not that good.
Thankfully, what is that good is the cinematography. The action is staged beautifully, though I’m unsure as to whether this is Howard’s influence or the previous directors. There is some striking imagery throughout the film with the western-style finale being absolutely superb. The CGI is nicely integrated with animatronics and props, just like a Star Wars movie should be, and each of the set pieces is brimming with excitement.
One sequence in particular, involving the liberation of some slaves is really nicely filmed with a great colour palate and the much-marketed monorail heist is edge-of-your-seat stuff with cracking CGI.
Pacing is generally good, and at 135 minutes that is no easy win though things do drag a little about half way through. What is pleasing however, is how the bromance between Chewbacca and Han takes a backseat up until about 40 minutes before the end in which a familiar theme plays over the action: it’s spine-tingling in its simplicity. In fact, John Powell’s score is rousing when it needs to be and beautifully put together. A real match for John Williams’ classic orchestral soundtrack.
Overall, Solo: A Star Wars Story is better than it had any right to be. Whenever a film goes through such a turbulent production process, it’s always concerning that the final product will be somehow lesser in quality, but this isn’t the case here. It’s not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as a continuation of the new Star Wars mantra under Disney, it’s a fitting entry and a great addition to the series.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/05/24/solo-a-star-wars-story-review-stars-wars-goes-western/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Totally Onix-pected
Before we begin, I must apologise for the bad pun, but if any franchise deserves a pun for their first live-action movie adaptation, it’s Pokémon. Growing up in 90s Britain, Pokémon was absolutely everywhere. You couldn’t turn a street corner without seeing Pikachu and his sidekick Ash (or should that be the other way around) emblazoned across every toy shop window or on every bus. It was a true phenomenon that took the world by storm like nothing else.
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/
