Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated 21 Jump Street (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Back in 1987, the fledgling Fox Network debuted, offering entertainment on Saturday and Sunday evenings aimed at a younger audience. One of the network’s first breakout shows was a police drama with young cops and plenty of action, a show named 21 Jump Street. The show featured a cast of largely unknowns who quickly bolted to overnight notoriety, most notably its star Johnny Depp who, much to his chagrin, became a pinup boy and sex symbol for the show.
The show mixed humor, action, and romance. It followed a team of young officers who were part of a special undercover unit that infiltrated high schools and colleges where they posed as students to solve various campus crimes. Johnny Depp left the show after the fourth season, wanting to be taken seriously as a legitimate actor. The show soon ended one year later. Despite having run only five seasons and having a short-lived spinoff series for star Richard Grieco, “21 Jump Street” remained a pop-culture hit 25 years later.
As such, I had a lot of skepticism when I first heard that Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum would be bringing an updated, raunchier version to the big screen that was heavy on laughs and would definitely aim for an R-rated. This theatrical version stars Hill as Officer Schmidt and Tatum as Officer Jenko, two young officers who met while in high school and, despite being on opposite ends of the social spectrum, bonded and became close friends during their time at the police academy years after graduation. When the duo find their lives as bike cops not as exciting as they had hoped and after they bungle their first chance at a significant arrest, the duo find themselves reassigned to the revived Jump Street project.
Schmidt, in spite of his misgivings, decides to face his fear of the horror that was high school decides to give it another chance. Jenko is soon horrified to see that the social structure that he dominated back in his day has clearly turned upside down. Jocks are no longer the big men on campus, replaced by sensitive New Age types. Nerds that he preyed upon are now the cool kids in school.
After the death of a student who took a new designer drug he bought at school, Schmidt and Jenko are assigned to find the dealers, infiltrate the gang and get to the bottom of the drug distribution ring and stop it at all costs. This proves to be easier said than done, especially for Schmidt. He begins to really relish his new found popularity in school and he starts to live the high school experience that he only dreamed about back in his day. Further complicating matters is Molly (Brie Larson), an attractive high school senior who quickly catches Schmidt’s attention and becomes a focal point of his day-to-day activities.
Jenko, on the other hand, finds himself struggling as the former high school kingpin now finds himself a social outcast, spending much of his time with the chemistry nerds trying to find a way to work the social structure to get to the bottom of the school’s drug trade.
Now what would be a simple assignment for two seasoned cops becomes completely unhinged for the to raw recruits who become more obsessed with social status than their mission and take extreme measures to ingratiate themselves with their new classmates. This all comes at a cost as their bond becomes strained due to Schmidt’s rapidly ascending social status and their continued inability to crack the case.
Now this is a premise that has been done countless times in numerous cop films. “21 Jump Street” has a bold and fresh formula that deftly mixes elements of the gross-out teen comedy with an action-adventure film. While the film drags a bit in the middle, there are some incredibly funny jokes throughout the film. The action in the film is solid and fits well with the story rather than trying to spice things up with random explosions.
I loved how the film, based on a story co-written by Jonah Hill, and produced by both Hill and Tatum, took a fresh approach to the subject matter but also respectfully made fun of the source material, banking on nostalgia while updating it for a younger audience.
I can easily say this was probably Jonah Hill’s best comedy to date as they were numerous laugh out loud moments in the film and he and Tatum make a fantastic duo, playing extremely well off one another. There are also several cameos in the film and strong supporting work from Ice Cube, who plays the extremely agitated captain of the inept cops placed under his command. The film sets up very well for a sequel and I understand that there’s already preparation underway should this one do well at the box office.
“21 Jump Street” is easily the funniest movie I’ve seen this year. I have not laughed this much, for all the right reasons, in quite a long time. Hip and fresh again, there’s plenty of bounce left in “21 Jump Street.”
The show mixed humor, action, and romance. It followed a team of young officers who were part of a special undercover unit that infiltrated high schools and colleges where they posed as students to solve various campus crimes. Johnny Depp left the show after the fourth season, wanting to be taken seriously as a legitimate actor. The show soon ended one year later. Despite having run only five seasons and having a short-lived spinoff series for star Richard Grieco, “21 Jump Street” remained a pop-culture hit 25 years later.
As such, I had a lot of skepticism when I first heard that Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum would be bringing an updated, raunchier version to the big screen that was heavy on laughs and would definitely aim for an R-rated. This theatrical version stars Hill as Officer Schmidt and Tatum as Officer Jenko, two young officers who met while in high school and, despite being on opposite ends of the social spectrum, bonded and became close friends during their time at the police academy years after graduation. When the duo find their lives as bike cops not as exciting as they had hoped and after they bungle their first chance at a significant arrest, the duo find themselves reassigned to the revived Jump Street project.
Schmidt, in spite of his misgivings, decides to face his fear of the horror that was high school decides to give it another chance. Jenko is soon horrified to see that the social structure that he dominated back in his day has clearly turned upside down. Jocks are no longer the big men on campus, replaced by sensitive New Age types. Nerds that he preyed upon are now the cool kids in school.
After the death of a student who took a new designer drug he bought at school, Schmidt and Jenko are assigned to find the dealers, infiltrate the gang and get to the bottom of the drug distribution ring and stop it at all costs. This proves to be easier said than done, especially for Schmidt. He begins to really relish his new found popularity in school and he starts to live the high school experience that he only dreamed about back in his day. Further complicating matters is Molly (Brie Larson), an attractive high school senior who quickly catches Schmidt’s attention and becomes a focal point of his day-to-day activities.
Jenko, on the other hand, finds himself struggling as the former high school kingpin now finds himself a social outcast, spending much of his time with the chemistry nerds trying to find a way to work the social structure to get to the bottom of the school’s drug trade.
Now what would be a simple assignment for two seasoned cops becomes completely unhinged for the to raw recruits who become more obsessed with social status than their mission and take extreme measures to ingratiate themselves with their new classmates. This all comes at a cost as their bond becomes strained due to Schmidt’s rapidly ascending social status and their continued inability to crack the case.
Now this is a premise that has been done countless times in numerous cop films. “21 Jump Street” has a bold and fresh formula that deftly mixes elements of the gross-out teen comedy with an action-adventure film. While the film drags a bit in the middle, there are some incredibly funny jokes throughout the film. The action in the film is solid and fits well with the story rather than trying to spice things up with random explosions.
I loved how the film, based on a story co-written by Jonah Hill, and produced by both Hill and Tatum, took a fresh approach to the subject matter but also respectfully made fun of the source material, banking on nostalgia while updating it for a younger audience.
I can easily say this was probably Jonah Hill’s best comedy to date as they were numerous laugh out loud moments in the film and he and Tatum make a fantastic duo, playing extremely well off one another. There are also several cameos in the film and strong supporting work from Ice Cube, who plays the extremely agitated captain of the inept cops placed under his command. The film sets up very well for a sequel and I understand that there’s already preparation underway should this one do well at the box office.
“21 Jump Street” is easily the funniest movie I’ve seen this year. I have not laughed this much, for all the right reasons, in quite a long time. Hip and fresh again, there’s plenty of bounce left in “21 Jump Street.”
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 22, 2018
Dull, boring & confused
I'll start by saying I've never been enamoured with the idea of the Fantastic Beasts films. For me, the wizarding world should have been left alone. The first film was enjoyable to a point (mainly because of Eddie Redmayne and the niffler), but this second film is inexcusable. And the fact that they're making another 3 more... totally unnecessary.
This film doesn't get off to a good start with the opening sequence, and rarely gets any better throughout the entire 2+ hour runtime. Some of the camera angles and shots used are terrible, jumping around all over the place even when it's just dialogue and the action scenes are virtually unwatchable. Whilst the effects are good, the plot is convoluted, confusing and just plain old boring. The majority of the film is just dialogue, and not well scripted dialogue at that and it gets very dull very quickly.
The characters that were likeable in the first film were either poorly used or turned into something completely different to what was likeable about them in the first place. There are far too many characters in this and even with the far too long run time, there isn't much time for character development. Johnny Depp is horrendous as Grindelwald. Not only because the character himself is the least menacing villain you've ever seen, but he's just not a very good actor anymore. I actually think his original incarnation as Colin Farrell in the first film would've been much better. I also couldn't figure out what crimes he had committed until the final act. The only person to come out of this film fairly intact was Jude Law, who played a likeable Dumbledore even if he wasn't on screen nearly enough. And really, it was only the creatures that made this worth watching and there just wasn't enough of them. Definitely not enough Niffler antics!
My main issue with this film is that it's messing with canon, bringing in characters we don't want to see and telling a story we don't need to hear. We didn't need to see Hogwarts, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Nagini and a few others I won't name. It's turning the wizarding world into a convoluted mess. They could have made a fairly decent standalone first Fantastic Beasts film that didn't link in with Grindelwald or the history at all, but instead they've made this nonsense.
And if I didn't think it could get any worse, the reveal of Credence's real identity right at the end nearly had me shouting at the screen it was that bad and ridiculous.
I probably could have walked out of this film after half an hour and not been bothered. Terrible.
This film doesn't get off to a good start with the opening sequence, and rarely gets any better throughout the entire 2+ hour runtime. Some of the camera angles and shots used are terrible, jumping around all over the place even when it's just dialogue and the action scenes are virtually unwatchable. Whilst the effects are good, the plot is convoluted, confusing and just plain old boring. The majority of the film is just dialogue, and not well scripted dialogue at that and it gets very dull very quickly.
The characters that were likeable in the first film were either poorly used or turned into something completely different to what was likeable about them in the first place. There are far too many characters in this and even with the far too long run time, there isn't much time for character development. Johnny Depp is horrendous as Grindelwald. Not only because the character himself is the least menacing villain you've ever seen, but he's just not a very good actor anymore. I actually think his original incarnation as Colin Farrell in the first film would've been much better. I also couldn't figure out what crimes he had committed until the final act. The only person to come out of this film fairly intact was Jude Law, who played a likeable Dumbledore even if he wasn't on screen nearly enough. And really, it was only the creatures that made this worth watching and there just wasn't enough of them. Definitely not enough Niffler antics!
My main issue with this film is that it's messing with canon, bringing in characters we don't want to see and telling a story we don't need to hear. We didn't need to see Hogwarts, Dumbledore, McGonagall, Nagini and a few others I won't name. It's turning the wizarding world into a convoluted mess. They could have made a fairly decent standalone first Fantastic Beasts film that didn't link in with Grindelwald or the history at all, but instead they've made this nonsense.
And if I didn't think it could get any worse, the reveal of Credence's real identity right at the end nearly had me shouting at the screen it was that bad and ridiculous.
I probably could have walked out of this film after half an hour and not been bothered. Terrible.
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Sep 26, 2017
A is for Artful
Contains spoilers, click to show
As with another of Tim Burton’s films, Sleepy Hollow, Alice in Wonderland strays significantly from the original material. And, in a vein similar to Sleepy Hollow, decapitation is a much-discussed topic.
Alice is introduced to the audience as a child who has strange dreams. In the subsequent scenes, an older Alice is seen in a carriage with her mother. She is unwittingly on her way to her engagement party, and she is fully expected to accept the offer of marriage from someone who seems quite ill-suited for her. “Your life will be perfect. It’s already been decided,” says her sister Margaret.
Elements of the engagement party offer foreshadowing for the alternate reality Alice soon finds herself in. Instead of accepting her suitor’s proposal, Alice runs away and follows a rabbit wearing a waistcoat into an exceptionally large rabbit hole. There, she is found falling with a variety of household objects, including one particularly friendly piano.
Once in Wonderland, Alice’s world has literally turned upside-down. She falls from her perch on the ceiling to the floor. Alice solves a puzzle of many locked doors, using the expected growing and shrinking mechanisms, and then she emerges into a strange topiary. There she is greeted by the rabbit and other residents of Wonderland, who argue whether this Alice is “the right Alice.”
Many of the traditional characters are found in this Wonderland, but most of the ominous poetry associated with those characters has been omitted. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are introduced, but they don’t seem to serve much purpose. I missed the recitation of “the Walrus and the Carpenter” very much.
Alice insists that the world around her must be a dream, as she is led through oversized mushrooms to a blue caterpillar, voiced by the talented Alan Rickman. Once again, Alice’s destiny is written: the caterpillar reveals a scroll which shows an image of Alice slaying the dreaded Jabberwocky. Indeed, it is her role to become the champion of Wonderland, to rise up and defeat the Red Queen who keeps this horrible beast as a weapon.
Later, we come across a dysfunctional tea party held under the shadow of a dilapidated windmill. Johnny Depp appears as the wild and wide-eyed Mad Hatter. Alice, it seems, is late to her tea just as she was to her engagement party. We learn that there is a whole network of characters, including the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), who wish to bring down the tyrannical Red Queen.
The struggle between the Red and White Queens eventually comes to a head, and Alice bravely accepts her fate to fight the Jabberwocky. And the Jabberwocky is indeed a terrifying entity, as it seems to be part dinosaur and part dragon.
The visual effects in this film were striking. Burton paints a beautiful landscape full of dark, rich colors. Several moments in the film are surreal and disturbing, such as when Alice crosses a moat full of dismembered heads to gain access to the Red Queen’s castle. However, some of the characters, such as the Cheshire cat, had a more cartoonish quality about them that I found off-putting.
The acting and voice-overs in the film were also impressive. Actress Mia Wasikowska was enchanting as Alice. She reflected the vulnerability and the more intrepid characteristics of the young girl quite well. Depp was delightfully creepy as the Mad Hatter. Crispin Glover was effective as the Knave of Hearts, the Red Queen’s lead henchman. And Stephen Fry was a marvelous voice choice for the strange and eerie Cheshire Cat.
The Red Queen is quite the character in this film. Helena Bonham Carter perfectly captures the Queen’s cruelty and absurdity. She delivers the “off with his head” line repeatedly and with gusto. The Queen’s cranium was so large that I was surprised she didn’t fall forward from the weight of it. And I haven’t seen that much blue eyeshadow since the 80s.
The Blu-ray version of this film enhanced the quality of the computer graphic imagery quite well. The special features consisted of interviews of the cast regarding the characters. These interviews contained behind-the-scenes looks at some of the makeup and green screen work done on this film. Though these interviews were enlightening, I would have loved to see more about the production process, since the sets and some characters were entirely computer-generated.
All things considered, Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is a delightful departure from reality. Fans of Burton’s other films are sure to love it.
Alice is introduced to the audience as a child who has strange dreams. In the subsequent scenes, an older Alice is seen in a carriage with her mother. She is unwittingly on her way to her engagement party, and she is fully expected to accept the offer of marriage from someone who seems quite ill-suited for her. “Your life will be perfect. It’s already been decided,” says her sister Margaret.
Elements of the engagement party offer foreshadowing for the alternate reality Alice soon finds herself in. Instead of accepting her suitor’s proposal, Alice runs away and follows a rabbit wearing a waistcoat into an exceptionally large rabbit hole. There, she is found falling with a variety of household objects, including one particularly friendly piano.
Once in Wonderland, Alice’s world has literally turned upside-down. She falls from her perch on the ceiling to the floor. Alice solves a puzzle of many locked doors, using the expected growing and shrinking mechanisms, and then she emerges into a strange topiary. There she is greeted by the rabbit and other residents of Wonderland, who argue whether this Alice is “the right Alice.”
Many of the traditional characters are found in this Wonderland, but most of the ominous poetry associated with those characters has been omitted. Tweedledum and Tweedledee are introduced, but they don’t seem to serve much purpose. I missed the recitation of “the Walrus and the Carpenter” very much.
Alice insists that the world around her must be a dream, as she is led through oversized mushrooms to a blue caterpillar, voiced by the talented Alan Rickman. Once again, Alice’s destiny is written: the caterpillar reveals a scroll which shows an image of Alice slaying the dreaded Jabberwocky. Indeed, it is her role to become the champion of Wonderland, to rise up and defeat the Red Queen who keeps this horrible beast as a weapon.
Later, we come across a dysfunctional tea party held under the shadow of a dilapidated windmill. Johnny Depp appears as the wild and wide-eyed Mad Hatter. Alice, it seems, is late to her tea just as she was to her engagement party. We learn that there is a whole network of characters, including the White Queen (Anne Hathaway), who wish to bring down the tyrannical Red Queen.
The struggle between the Red and White Queens eventually comes to a head, and Alice bravely accepts her fate to fight the Jabberwocky. And the Jabberwocky is indeed a terrifying entity, as it seems to be part dinosaur and part dragon.
The visual effects in this film were striking. Burton paints a beautiful landscape full of dark, rich colors. Several moments in the film are surreal and disturbing, such as when Alice crosses a moat full of dismembered heads to gain access to the Red Queen’s castle. However, some of the characters, such as the Cheshire cat, had a more cartoonish quality about them that I found off-putting.
The acting and voice-overs in the film were also impressive. Actress Mia Wasikowska was enchanting as Alice. She reflected the vulnerability and the more intrepid characteristics of the young girl quite well. Depp was delightfully creepy as the Mad Hatter. Crispin Glover was effective as the Knave of Hearts, the Red Queen’s lead henchman. And Stephen Fry was a marvelous voice choice for the strange and eerie Cheshire Cat.
The Red Queen is quite the character in this film. Helena Bonham Carter perfectly captures the Queen’s cruelty and absurdity. She delivers the “off with his head” line repeatedly and with gusto. The Queen’s cranium was so large that I was surprised she didn’t fall forward from the weight of it. And I haven’t seen that much blue eyeshadow since the 80s.
The Blu-ray version of this film enhanced the quality of the computer graphic imagery quite well. The special features consisted of interviews of the cast regarding the characters. These interviews contained behind-the-scenes looks at some of the makeup and green screen work done on this film. Though these interviews were enlightening, I would have loved to see more about the production process, since the sets and some characters were entirely computer-generated.
All things considered, Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is a delightful departure from reality. Fans of Burton’s other films are sure to love it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You’ll never guess who dunnit…
There’s a big problem with Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that’s the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the “who” of the “whodunnit” (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 6, 2020
Pleasantly Surprised with a Great Lead Performance by Moss
I really had no desire to check out the Blumhouse re-imaging of the classic Universal horror classic THE INVISIBLE MAN, but I was hearing positive comments on it - especially about the lead performance - so I figured I'd better check it out.
And I'm glad I did. For this INVISIBLE MAN is taught and tense with (of course) a strong leading performance. And...it has something else...
Intelligence.
Originally, THE INVISIBLE MAN was supposed to be part of the ongoing Universal Studios "Dark Universe" series of films - Universal's answer to the Marvel Cinematic Universe or the DCEU - but when the first film in this series THE MUMMY tanked at the box office, Universal made a "first look deal" with Blumhouse Studios (makers of such low budget horror films as PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and THE PURGE) to make stand alone films with the classic Universal Studios characters.
First up...THE INVISIBLE MAN...replacing Johnny Depp in the titular role and changing the focus of the film from THE INVISIBLE MAN to a woman (Elizabeth Moss) being harassed (or is she?) by THE INVISIBLE MAN.
And...an inspired choice it is. I was surpirsed by the restraint and intelligence that Blumhouse - and Director Leigh Whanell (UPGRADE) - show with this material. Whanell ratchets up the tension and let's the audience sit in the uncertainty that the main character has.
And...when that main character is performed as well as Elisabeth Moss (THE HANDMAID'S TALE), then it is 2 hours well worth your time. Moss' performance is the glue that holds this film together. If she isn't as good as she is in her role, then this film doesn't work. She is...and it does. Some say that she should earn an Oscar nomination for this work. I wouldn't quite go there (if any actress in a Horror film deserves an Oscar nomination, it would have been Lupita Nyong'o in US last year) but it is a very, very good performance.
As is the performances of Harriet Dyer (as Moss' sister) and Aldis Hodge (as a friend of Moss' character). These two brought watch-ability, and believe-ability, to their characters and situations. And this is good for, if I'm to be honest, this film does fall down in the believe-ability factor. I have a tendency to turn that part of my brain off in these types of films, but there are HUGE plot holes and gaps in logic that I just couldn't ignore, which brought this film down a peg or so.
As does the performance of Oliver Jackson-Cohen in the title role. I just didn't like what he was doing in this role, but fortunately, we don't see much of him (rim-shot).
Overall, a pleasant enough surprise with an intelligence I wasn't expecting and a lead performance that is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And I'm glad I did. For this INVISIBLE MAN is taught and tense with (of course) a strong leading performance. And...it has something else...
Intelligence.
Originally, THE INVISIBLE MAN was supposed to be part of the ongoing Universal Studios "Dark Universe" series of films - Universal's answer to the Marvel Cinematic Universe or the DCEU - but when the first film in this series THE MUMMY tanked at the box office, Universal made a "first look deal" with Blumhouse Studios (makers of such low budget horror films as PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and THE PURGE) to make stand alone films with the classic Universal Studios characters.
First up...THE INVISIBLE MAN...replacing Johnny Depp in the titular role and changing the focus of the film from THE INVISIBLE MAN to a woman (Elizabeth Moss) being harassed (or is she?) by THE INVISIBLE MAN.
And...an inspired choice it is. I was surpirsed by the restraint and intelligence that Blumhouse - and Director Leigh Whanell (UPGRADE) - show with this material. Whanell ratchets up the tension and let's the audience sit in the uncertainty that the main character has.
And...when that main character is performed as well as Elisabeth Moss (THE HANDMAID'S TALE), then it is 2 hours well worth your time. Moss' performance is the glue that holds this film together. If she isn't as good as she is in her role, then this film doesn't work. She is...and it does. Some say that she should earn an Oscar nomination for this work. I wouldn't quite go there (if any actress in a Horror film deserves an Oscar nomination, it would have been Lupita Nyong'o in US last year) but it is a very, very good performance.
As is the performances of Harriet Dyer (as Moss' sister) and Aldis Hodge (as a friend of Moss' character). These two brought watch-ability, and believe-ability, to their characters and situations. And this is good for, if I'm to be honest, this film does fall down in the believe-ability factor. I have a tendency to turn that part of my brain off in these types of films, but there are HUGE plot holes and gaps in logic that I just couldn't ignore, which brought this film down a peg or so.
As does the performance of Oliver Jackson-Cohen in the title role. I just didn't like what he was doing in this role, but fortunately, we don't see much of him (rim-shot).
Overall, a pleasant enough surprise with an intelligence I wasn't expecting and a lead performance that is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Lestranger than fiction.
I must be one of the last people to watch this in the cinema, thanks to an irritating bout of sickness and – well – frankly total bloody apathy! For me this is the franchise that nobody asked for and nobody wanted. (Well, “nobody” is probably overstating the case, since there is probably a bunch of Potterheads out there who are shouting at me right now). But judging from the opinion of my daughter-in-law, who could win “Mastermind” with her knowledge of the original Potter series as her specialist subject, I am certainly not alone in my lack of enthusiasm.
The Plot
I’d really love to tell you about the plot. I really would! But I would struggle to pull all the multitude of strands together from J.K. Rowling’s story and coherently explain them to anyone. If Rowling had put ten thousand monkeys (not a million – it’s no bloody Shakespeare) into a room with typewriters and locked the door I wouldn’t be surprised.
Let me try at a high level….. The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in ‘Trump Tower’, but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are “closer than brothers” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone… which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of ‘Fake News’.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart’s schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have… well… a complete bugger’s muggle – – sorry – – muddle.
A plot that’s all at sea
Above all, I really can’t explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given ‘im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something… or I’d just not been intelligent enough to process the information…. or…. it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it’s the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The turns
The film’s a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my “Fantastic Beasts” review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film…. you’ll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
Wizards of the screen
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive – an ‘explosion’ in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular.
But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I’ve seen complain that this was a ‘filler’ film… a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it’s like the “Order of the Phoenix” of the prequels.
Final Thoughts
I dragged myself along to see this one because “I thought I should”. The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won’t – she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I’m afraid, lies at Rowling’s door alone.
The Plot
I’d really love to tell you about the plot. I really would! But I would struggle to pull all the multitude of strands together from J.K. Rowling’s story and coherently explain them to anyone. If Rowling had put ten thousand monkeys (not a million – it’s no bloody Shakespeare) into a room with typewriters and locked the door I wouldn’t be surprised.
Let me try at a high level….. The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in ‘Trump Tower’, but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are “closer than brothers” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone… which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of ‘Fake News’.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart’s schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have… well… a complete bugger’s muggle – – sorry – – muddle.
A plot that’s all at sea
Above all, I really can’t explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given ‘im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something… or I’d just not been intelligent enough to process the information…. or…. it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it’s the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The turns
The film’s a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my “Fantastic Beasts” review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film…. you’ll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
Wizards of the screen
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive – an ‘explosion’ in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular.
But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I’ve seen complain that this was a ‘filler’ film… a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it’s like the “Order of the Phoenix” of the prequels.
Final Thoughts
I dragged myself along to see this one because “I thought I should”. The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won’t – she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I’m afraid, lies at Rowling’s door alone.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Murder on the Orient Express is a mystery drama directed by, and starring, Kenneth Branagh and is based on the 1934 Agatha Christie novel of the same name. The film brings in a spectacular cast alongside Branagh, including Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, Josh Gad, Michelle Pfeiffer and Daisy Ridley. Also part of the main cast, while not well known, but equally as talented, are Tom Bateman, Derek Jacobi, Leslie Odom Jr. and Lucy Boynton.
For those unfamiliar with the novel, or the 1974 and 2001 adaptations, Murder tells the story of, well… a murder. On a train. It’s really a lot more than that. Branagh portrays Hercule Poirot, a famed Belgian detective who is looking forward to some time off. But during his travels, a most unfortunate thing happens. Two things actually. Someone is murdered aboard the train he is traveling on, the Orient Express (naturally). And the murderer would’ve gotten away free and clear had storm not caused an avalanche, which thanks to a derailed engine, caused the train to become stuck and the body to be discovered. Poirot’s friend, Bouc (Bateman), runs the train and requested that Poirot solve the mystery before the police arrive in fear of someone innocent being accused, and to save himself from a heyday with his father. Can Poirot find out who is the killer between the star-studded cast?
I’ve read the novel. Seen both adaptations. This film blows those earlier adaptations out of the water. There is no contest here. Now clearly, nothing can beat the book. But Murder is about as great a film you can get in the murky land of Hollywood these days. As mentioned, Branagh directed and starred in the film, which he shot on 65 mm. The last time he did this was with Hamlet in 1996. It looked good then, and it looks even better now. With eye-popping visuals throughout the entirety of the film, and a masterful soundtrack that seamlessly blended with the tones and themes of each scene, the film is a modern masterpiece.
It wasn’t without its faults. (Most) every film has them. And there are a lot of people who are upset with Branagh’s portrayal of Poirot, particularly the representation of his eccentric facial hair. I am not one of those people. I believe it, along with other amazing moments, lent a bit of humor to the movie to break up what should otherwise be, and is, a serious whodunit mystery. Also, I felt they changed a few things in the adaptation that didn’t necessarily need to be changed.
I found it hard to sit and write about the film though. Given the nature of a great mystery, I can’t tell you too much about it without risk of giving out crucial details to the plot and outcome. So I will leave you with this, boys, girls, and everything in between and beyond… with a great and talented cast (bravo to Michelle Pfeiffer in particular) who nailed home their characters, to great visuals, and a great score, this movie is definitely one you want to catch.
For those unfamiliar with the novel, or the 1974 and 2001 adaptations, Murder tells the story of, well… a murder. On a train. It’s really a lot more than that. Branagh portrays Hercule Poirot, a famed Belgian detective who is looking forward to some time off. But during his travels, a most unfortunate thing happens. Two things actually. Someone is murdered aboard the train he is traveling on, the Orient Express (naturally). And the murderer would’ve gotten away free and clear had storm not caused an avalanche, which thanks to a derailed engine, caused the train to become stuck and the body to be discovered. Poirot’s friend, Bouc (Bateman), runs the train and requested that Poirot solve the mystery before the police arrive in fear of someone innocent being accused, and to save himself from a heyday with his father. Can Poirot find out who is the killer between the star-studded cast?
I’ve read the novel. Seen both adaptations. This film blows those earlier adaptations out of the water. There is no contest here. Now clearly, nothing can beat the book. But Murder is about as great a film you can get in the murky land of Hollywood these days. As mentioned, Branagh directed and starred in the film, which he shot on 65 mm. The last time he did this was with Hamlet in 1996. It looked good then, and it looks even better now. With eye-popping visuals throughout the entirety of the film, and a masterful soundtrack that seamlessly blended with the tones and themes of each scene, the film is a modern masterpiece.
It wasn’t without its faults. (Most) every film has them. And there are a lot of people who are upset with Branagh’s portrayal of Poirot, particularly the representation of his eccentric facial hair. I am not one of those people. I believe it, along with other amazing moments, lent a bit of humor to the movie to break up what should otherwise be, and is, a serious whodunit mystery. Also, I felt they changed a few things in the adaptation that didn’t necessarily need to be changed.
I found it hard to sit and write about the film though. Given the nature of a great mystery, I can’t tell you too much about it without risk of giving out crucial details to the plot and outcome. So I will leave you with this, boys, girls, and everything in between and beyond… with a great and talented cast (bravo to Michelle Pfeiffer in particular) who nailed home their characters, to great visuals, and a great score, this movie is definitely one you want to catch.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Into the Woods (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A charming adaptation
Wolves, witches and giants all appear in the film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim’s popular musical which takes all the best bits of our favourite fairytales and mashes them together in one engaging, song-filled rollercoaster.
However, musical movie adaptations are notoriously difficult to get right, from casting restraints to the inclusion of all the songs, transferring them to the silver screen is not something to be entered into lightly. So does director Rob Marhsall’s effort elevate itself above its peers?
Into the Woods has numerous plot threads that all end up coming together in one way or another, but the main storyline follows a baker (James Corden) and his wife, played gloriously by Emily Blunt, as they come to realise they cannot have a child.
Alas, a witch – who just so happens to live next door – has a way to provide them with what they want as long as they get a few items for her in the meantime.
An all-star cast including the likes of Chris Pine, Anna Kendrick, Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch, Johnny Depp and of course Meryl Streep all give their all in a film that is brimming with tantalising cinematography and stunning songs.
meryl-streep-into-the-woodsGenerally speaking, the female cast fares better in the singing portions of the film, although Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen had the audience in intentional fits of laughter in one particular sequence as two handsome Princes.
Unfortunately, Into the Wood’s greatest asset, its cast, is also its biggest undoing. Having so many story threads means that there isn’t any emotional attachment to the characters – despite the film’s numerous attempts to tug at the heartstrings.
Despite a deeply heartfelt performance of ‘Stay with Me’ from Meryl Streep, the film just steadily rolls itself from admittedly thrilling set piece to set piece without getting bogged down in nitty gritty character development.
Thankfully, the glorious cinematography that featured in the trailer continues throughout. An enclosed feeling makes you feel like you’re actually watching a stage show rather than a film, albeit one with a much higher budget, and this is one of its most captivating features.
Director Rob Marshall has managed to keep the pantomime feel despite the fact the audience is watching in a cinema – the locations are never overdone and everything feels nicely claustrophobic, adding to the eerie atmosphere.
However, the final act is unnecessarily long and its foray into deeper territory means the magic and sparkle is well and truly lost. This is a real shame as there are numerous moments where the film could end on a high, rather than delving into a murky and at times, incomprehensible final third.
Overall, Into the Woods is a charming adaptation of the popular musical and despite its slightly overlong running time and a disappointing final act, it manages to stay on course for a perfectly adequate, if underwhelming finale.
The entire cast have a ball with their characters with Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt being particular highlights throughout.
Parents beware however, its PG certification may be slightly too lenient for smaller children, who will no doubt be intrigued by the premise of combining our most-loved fairytales.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/17/a-charming-adaptation-into-the-woods-review/
However, musical movie adaptations are notoriously difficult to get right, from casting restraints to the inclusion of all the songs, transferring them to the silver screen is not something to be entered into lightly. So does director Rob Marhsall’s effort elevate itself above its peers?
Into the Woods has numerous plot threads that all end up coming together in one way or another, but the main storyline follows a baker (James Corden) and his wife, played gloriously by Emily Blunt, as they come to realise they cannot have a child.
Alas, a witch – who just so happens to live next door – has a way to provide them with what they want as long as they get a few items for her in the meantime.
An all-star cast including the likes of Chris Pine, Anna Kendrick, Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch, Johnny Depp and of course Meryl Streep all give their all in a film that is brimming with tantalising cinematography and stunning songs.
meryl-streep-into-the-woodsGenerally speaking, the female cast fares better in the singing portions of the film, although Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen had the audience in intentional fits of laughter in one particular sequence as two handsome Princes.
Unfortunately, Into the Wood’s greatest asset, its cast, is also its biggest undoing. Having so many story threads means that there isn’t any emotional attachment to the characters – despite the film’s numerous attempts to tug at the heartstrings.
Despite a deeply heartfelt performance of ‘Stay with Me’ from Meryl Streep, the film just steadily rolls itself from admittedly thrilling set piece to set piece without getting bogged down in nitty gritty character development.
Thankfully, the glorious cinematography that featured in the trailer continues throughout. An enclosed feeling makes you feel like you’re actually watching a stage show rather than a film, albeit one with a much higher budget, and this is one of its most captivating features.
Director Rob Marshall has managed to keep the pantomime feel despite the fact the audience is watching in a cinema – the locations are never overdone and everything feels nicely claustrophobic, adding to the eerie atmosphere.
However, the final act is unnecessarily long and its foray into deeper territory means the magic and sparkle is well and truly lost. This is a real shame as there are numerous moments where the film could end on a high, rather than delving into a murky and at times, incomprehensible final third.
Overall, Into the Woods is a charming adaptation of the popular musical and despite its slightly overlong running time and a disappointing final act, it manages to stay on course for a perfectly adequate, if underwhelming finale.
The entire cast have a ball with their characters with Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt being particular highlights throughout.
Parents beware however, its PG certification may be slightly too lenient for smaller children, who will no doubt be intrigued by the premise of combining our most-loved fairytales.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/17/a-charming-adaptation-into-the-woods-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 21, 2018
For the "true" Potter fan
It is a misnomer to call FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD a "Harry Potter" movie. True, it is a film that takes place in the "Harry Potter-verse", but it should, more accurately, be called an "Albus Dumbledore" movie.
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
As an Alice in Wonderland enthusiast, I was more than thrilled when Disney announced they were making Alice Through the Looking Glass, since the first film was visually stunning I went into watching the sequel with the same expectation that it would be rich in color and visuals. Visually it did not disappoint, with lavish costumes, and whimsical set design from beginning to end; the film was entertaining to watch. With returning characters such as Alice (Mia Wasikowska), The Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), and The White Queen (Anne Hathaway); the main story focuses on Alice trying to save the Hatter. With the citizens of Wonderland concerned for the Hatter’s wellbeing they rely on Alice to try to save the Hatter before it is too late, however Alice must race against Time (Sacha Baron Cohen) to try to learn what has happened to the Hatters family. Alice learns you can’t change the past but you can learn from it for the future; but will this knowledge help her save the Hatter or keep her stuck in the past?
Alice Through the Looking Glass mainly focuses on the friendship of Alice and the Hatter but also gives background history into the past of the Hatter, The Red Queen, and The White Queen. I found this really insightful and made it easier to get invested into the films plot points. I also found this film much more fast paced then the first film, literally about 10 minutes into the film Alice is jumping through the looking glass into Wonderland and right into the action. The newest addition to this film however is Time; who at first is given the main antagonist slot of the film, but as the story progresses that is not entirely the case. The film really shows good and evil are subjective in a sense, all while giving a good old fashion Disney happy ending.
Tim Burton’s Alice Through the Looking Glass keeps the accomplished directors personal style while keeping the characters of Lewis Carroll’s novel noticeable. However, I will warn you, if you were wanting to see this and hoping it was just like the novel.
It’s not. It’s actually the furthest from the actual book Through the Looking-Glass. The only reason it should probably have this title is due to Alice walking through the looking glass to get to Wonderland, but story wise it has nothing in common story wise. Burton used heavy creative license in the film, and even added Time as a leading role and main plot point that’s not even in Carroll’s novel. While the film is visually stunning and the beloved characters help the audience get invested, the overall plot is somewhat lacking the whimsy that is known in Carroll’s story. While the first film tells the story of Carroll’s novel, the sequel is definitely a story of Burton’s creation. So overall I would say the film is decent; if you enjoyed the first one you should enjoy this one. However, for those who loved the novel and were hoping for an accurate adaptation, this might not be for you. For me personally as a lover of all things “Alice in Wonderland”; I enjoyed it visually, and the portrayal of characters was great, but I felt the story was lacking.
Alice Through the Looking Glass mainly focuses on the friendship of Alice and the Hatter but also gives background history into the past of the Hatter, The Red Queen, and The White Queen. I found this really insightful and made it easier to get invested into the films plot points. I also found this film much more fast paced then the first film, literally about 10 minutes into the film Alice is jumping through the looking glass into Wonderland and right into the action. The newest addition to this film however is Time; who at first is given the main antagonist slot of the film, but as the story progresses that is not entirely the case. The film really shows good and evil are subjective in a sense, all while giving a good old fashion Disney happy ending.
Tim Burton’s Alice Through the Looking Glass keeps the accomplished directors personal style while keeping the characters of Lewis Carroll’s novel noticeable. However, I will warn you, if you were wanting to see this and hoping it was just like the novel.
It’s not. It’s actually the furthest from the actual book Through the Looking-Glass. The only reason it should probably have this title is due to Alice walking through the looking glass to get to Wonderland, but story wise it has nothing in common story wise. Burton used heavy creative license in the film, and even added Time as a leading role and main plot point that’s not even in Carroll’s novel. While the film is visually stunning and the beloved characters help the audience get invested, the overall plot is somewhat lacking the whimsy that is known in Carroll’s story. While the first film tells the story of Carroll’s novel, the sequel is definitely a story of Burton’s creation. So overall I would say the film is decent; if you enjoyed the first one you should enjoy this one. However, for those who loved the novel and were hoping for an accurate adaptation, this might not be for you. For me personally as a lover of all things “Alice in Wonderland”; I enjoyed it visually, and the portrayal of characters was great, but I felt the story was lacking.