Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Lone Ranger (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
With much of the pre-release coverage of the film centered on the reportedly $250 million plus shooting budget, audiences can finally see the fruits of this labor as Disney brings “The Lone Ranger” to the big screen. The movie stars Johnny Depp as Tonto and tells a slightly updated tale of the masked ranger, yet stays refreshingly grounded in the traditions and history of the source material.
Armie Hammer stars as John Reid, a district attorney who returns to Texas to provide justice to a lawless land that is in the process of great expansion thanks to the pending completion of the Transcontinental Railroad. In the 1860s, the country is in a great state of change as the completion of the railroad will allow people to travel coast-to-coast across, something that was once an extremely long and dangerous journey to undertake.
The local railroad administrator plans to do a public hanging of notorious outlaw murder Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), as an example of how law and order has come to the wild frontier, a show to encourage Western expansion and install a sense of security in the local populace. The local Comanche tribes are told that as long as they continue to honor the established treaties they will be able to coexist in peace with the Western settlers.
Following a daring escape from the train that is carrying him to justice, Cavendish departs into the desert with his gang of outlaws. Not willing to let him escape justice once again, Reid’s brother Dan deputizes John, and leads the posse to bring Cavendish to justice. Now as anybody who’s followed any of the previous incarnations of the story knows, the posse is ambushed and all the Rangers are brutally murdered by Cavendish and is outlaws. Enter Tonto, who discovers John barely alive, and overseas his restoration to health. It is Tonto who convinces Reid to wear a mask as he is convinced that Cavendish had help and that it would be best for John and his brother’s family if the world believed John died with the other rangers to save them from any possible retribution
In a refreshing change of pace, Reid is not a swaggering fountain of machismo. He is a man who puts his faith in the law rather than in a six shooter and is actually hesitant to fire a weapon and use lethal forms of violence to dispense justice. This brings him at odds from time to time with Tonto who tries to walk the thin line between his people and his beliefs and the ever-changing modern world around him.
When the military began systematically retaliating against Tonto’s people for perceived raids against the townspeople, Reid and Tonto not only must deal with Cavendish and his gang of outlaws but must get to the bottom of a larger mystery that threatens to not only eradicate the Comanche people but to threaten the good citizens of the area. With his trusty and at times comical white horse, Silver, Reid and Tonto must learn to coexist with each other in a desperate race against time.
The film was an extremely enjoyable and fresh take on the characters that I really enjoyed. By giving the characters slightly more updated and relatable personas and traits yet retaining their core identities in history, Depp and Hammer made this a Western that was fun and cool and yet stayed true to the origins of the characters while making them more appealing to a modern audience. What really impressed me was Depp how he took what is often jokingly seen as a stereo typical Western sidekick and made him a very compelling yet diverse character. Yes, there is a lot of humor in the film but it is entertainingly at the expense of Reid, most often with Tonto getting some of the best lines in the film. I really appreciated the fact how it told a story without being overly politically correct or preaching, letting the characters and the action convey the message.
The action in the film is solid and the harrowing finale had people in the test screening cheering the action. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer and Director Gore Verbinski are to be commended for bringing a lively story that introduces the iconic characters to a new generation of fans. I hope that the film is able to draw fans and gives Disney’s a good return on its large investment as I would love to see Depp and Hammer back for future adventures. “The Lone Ranger” was the most pleasant surprise of the summer to date and the only summer film so far that I would pay to see again.
http://sknr.net/2013/07/03/the-lone-ranger/
Armie Hammer stars as John Reid, a district attorney who returns to Texas to provide justice to a lawless land that is in the process of great expansion thanks to the pending completion of the Transcontinental Railroad. In the 1860s, the country is in a great state of change as the completion of the railroad will allow people to travel coast-to-coast across, something that was once an extremely long and dangerous journey to undertake.
The local railroad administrator plans to do a public hanging of notorious outlaw murder Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner), as an example of how law and order has come to the wild frontier, a show to encourage Western expansion and install a sense of security in the local populace. The local Comanche tribes are told that as long as they continue to honor the established treaties they will be able to coexist in peace with the Western settlers.
Following a daring escape from the train that is carrying him to justice, Cavendish departs into the desert with his gang of outlaws. Not willing to let him escape justice once again, Reid’s brother Dan deputizes John, and leads the posse to bring Cavendish to justice. Now as anybody who’s followed any of the previous incarnations of the story knows, the posse is ambushed and all the Rangers are brutally murdered by Cavendish and is outlaws. Enter Tonto, who discovers John barely alive, and overseas his restoration to health. It is Tonto who convinces Reid to wear a mask as he is convinced that Cavendish had help and that it would be best for John and his brother’s family if the world believed John died with the other rangers to save them from any possible retribution
In a refreshing change of pace, Reid is not a swaggering fountain of machismo. He is a man who puts his faith in the law rather than in a six shooter and is actually hesitant to fire a weapon and use lethal forms of violence to dispense justice. This brings him at odds from time to time with Tonto who tries to walk the thin line between his people and his beliefs and the ever-changing modern world around him.
When the military began systematically retaliating against Tonto’s people for perceived raids against the townspeople, Reid and Tonto not only must deal with Cavendish and his gang of outlaws but must get to the bottom of a larger mystery that threatens to not only eradicate the Comanche people but to threaten the good citizens of the area. With his trusty and at times comical white horse, Silver, Reid and Tonto must learn to coexist with each other in a desperate race against time.
The film was an extremely enjoyable and fresh take on the characters that I really enjoyed. By giving the characters slightly more updated and relatable personas and traits yet retaining their core identities in history, Depp and Hammer made this a Western that was fun and cool and yet stayed true to the origins of the characters while making them more appealing to a modern audience. What really impressed me was Depp how he took what is often jokingly seen as a stereo typical Western sidekick and made him a very compelling yet diverse character. Yes, there is a lot of humor in the film but it is entertainingly at the expense of Reid, most often with Tonto getting some of the best lines in the film. I really appreciated the fact how it told a story without being overly politically correct or preaching, letting the characters and the action convey the message.
The action in the film is solid and the harrowing finale had people in the test screening cheering the action. Producer Jerry Bruckheimer and Director Gore Verbinski are to be commended for bringing a lively story that introduces the iconic characters to a new generation of fans. I hope that the film is able to draw fans and gives Disney’s a good return on its large investment as I would love to see Depp and Hammer back for future adventures. “The Lone Ranger” was the most pleasant surprise of the summer to date and the only summer film so far that I would pay to see again.
http://sknr.net/2013/07/03/the-lone-ranger/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 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.”
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Return to form
Based, believe it or not, loosely, on the Tim Powers novel, On Stranger Tides, Pirates 4 seemed about as appealing as hole in the head after the diabolical sequels to the excellent first outing. Then it was to be in 3D, scrap several key characters and shed the direction of Gore Verbinski, in favour of Chicago's, Rob Marshall. A recipe for disaster? It seemed that way.
Though saying that, Gore had certainly sealed his fate with me, turning what was a well conceived, action adventure romp with some very memorable characters into an unnecessary epic saga which seriously missed the point and derailed itself. One dubious decision taken in the production of Dead Man's Chest, was to keep Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly's characters, let alone giving them so much prominence.
Knightly was fine, for the first film,. in fact, she was spot on, but she couldn't carry the role any further and began to look ridiculous as the series progressed. This should have been the adventures of Jack Sparrow, so excellently portrayed by Johnny Depp, and Geoffrey Rush's, Barbossa was the perfect pirate. So I was more than pleased to see the continuing adventures of these two characters, with Depp, returning to form after I felt that he had lost it in the sequels.
Penélope Cruz was another pleasant surprise, as never being a fan of her's, I was dubious but this was casting done properly. She was more than convincing as a pirate and put Knightly's efforts to shame. But what of Ian McShane's Blackbeard? Well, another great showing from him, but the inexplicable magic displayed as he waves in his 3D sword around and points it at the camera to remind us that 3D is here, not so much.
But the 3D was pretty naff. You could watch most of the film without the glasses, with the effect being limited to several sequences. It looked good, it was inoffensive and unobtrusive but what was the point again? I don't think that this film will do 3D any real harm but that's because nobody really noticed it in the first place.
The sense of adventure from the The Curse Of The Black Pearl was evident here and long over due. I find it puzzling as to why so many reviews have been so harsh, branding it boring, overly complicated and not pulled together properly, but I would disagree. Granted, it is a bit scrappy, it's not going to be used as case study in tight scripting, or deep character development and it is somewhat derivative, but it was fun, flashy and flamboyant.
Isn't this what these films are all about? Depp created a classic character with Sparrow back in 2003, and tough I felt that he was a one trick pony, Sparrow that is, not Depp, this was a partial return to form, under new direction from Marshall. But I am left feeling that no matter how much I enjoyed this for what it was, the first Pirates Of The Caribbean was a film which successfully transferred a theme park ride into a career defining blockbuster, but I feel that it should have remained one film, a single triumph and not a franchise that has been saved in my eyes, by the fourth installment.
Though saying that, Gore had certainly sealed his fate with me, turning what was a well conceived, action adventure romp with some very memorable characters into an unnecessary epic saga which seriously missed the point and derailed itself. One dubious decision taken in the production of Dead Man's Chest, was to keep Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly's characters, let alone giving them so much prominence.
Knightly was fine, for the first film,. in fact, she was spot on, but she couldn't carry the role any further and began to look ridiculous as the series progressed. This should have been the adventures of Jack Sparrow, so excellently portrayed by Johnny Depp, and Geoffrey Rush's, Barbossa was the perfect pirate. So I was more than pleased to see the continuing adventures of these two characters, with Depp, returning to form after I felt that he had lost it in the sequels.
Penélope Cruz was another pleasant surprise, as never being a fan of her's, I was dubious but this was casting done properly. She was more than convincing as a pirate and put Knightly's efforts to shame. But what of Ian McShane's Blackbeard? Well, another great showing from him, but the inexplicable magic displayed as he waves in his 3D sword around and points it at the camera to remind us that 3D is here, not so much.
But the 3D was pretty naff. You could watch most of the film without the glasses, with the effect being limited to several sequences. It looked good, it was inoffensive and unobtrusive but what was the point again? I don't think that this film will do 3D any real harm but that's because nobody really noticed it in the first place.
The sense of adventure from the The Curse Of The Black Pearl was evident here and long over due. I find it puzzling as to why so many reviews have been so harsh, branding it boring, overly complicated and not pulled together properly, but I would disagree. Granted, it is a bit scrappy, it's not going to be used as case study in tight scripting, or deep character development and it is somewhat derivative, but it was fun, flashy and flamboyant.
Isn't this what these films are all about? Depp created a classic character with Sparrow back in 2003, and tough I felt that he was a one trick pony, Sparrow that is, not Depp, this was a partial return to form, under new direction from Marshall. But I am left feeling that no matter how much I enjoyed this for what it was, the first Pirates Of The Caribbean was a film which successfully transferred a theme park ride into a career defining blockbuster, but I feel that it should have remained one film, a single triumph and not a franchise that has been saved in my eyes, by the fourth installment.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Transformers of the superhero genre
It feels like eons ago that Batman v Superman was announced as a genuine movie. Way back in 2007 there was a poster that seemed to signify DC Comic’s plans in I am Legend, but fans just thought of it as a pipedream.
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Emma (2020) in Movies
Mar 1, 2020
Another classic novel that I have no knowledge of, I even own the BBC version on DVD, I'm really not sure how I haven't watched it.
In old English society what was a girl to do with her spare time to stay entertained? Read, learn the piano, paint... act as matchmaker to her friends. When Emma Woodhouse sees a flicker of promise or flirtation she jumps at the chance to fan the flames of romance between her friends and acquaintances, but when wires get crossed and misunderstandings occur, things begin to crack.
I always had the impression that Emma was a light comedy drama from hearing people talk about it, and while that did come across, I was surprised to come out feeling negatively towards my namesake. I had assumed that Emma was a delightful and whimsical character [as most Emmas are] and when I spent a lot of the film feeling like she was, frankly, a bit of a bitch, I wanted to banish her from the exclusive "Emma Club". Apart from besmirching the good name the attitude didn't seem to fit with the humour of the film.
Emma. is charming, but it didn't quite get me over the line. There seemed little reason for it to be over 2 hours long, while most of the film was engaging you could have taken out 15 minutes or so and tightened it up, I genuinely think that would have added a star to my rating.
Actually, hold off on that star for a moment, let's talk about the casting first.
Rupert Graves, yeeeeeeeeeeees. That's it for him, he's a delight, put him in everything.
Bill Night and Miranda Hart both gave great comedic performances, with Hart also getting an agonising scene that got me right in the feels. Their talent for humour added a great lightness to the film and was perfectly aligned to the period setting.
Johnny Flynn, or Mr Tasty Debrief for the Cineworld-goers out there. He was tastefully de-briefed, and the reason for the card warning: "Brief natural nudity". Flynn had some good moments, particularly around the picnic scene but for me this strong character becomes too sappy as we roll downhill to the ending.
Emma herself, Anya Taylor-Joy... I have already said that I found Emma to be a bit of a bitch, for the light-hearted nature of the film I really felt the time was off. I know there isn't a lot that would be different in this setting to modern day but I found the sly nature to feel far more modern than everything else. I think that is mainly down to the casting, Taylor-Joy's acting frequently has that vibe too it and it doesn't always endear me to her films, this makes me slightly nervous to see her in Radioactive and The New Mutants over the next couple of months.
The setting is of course as delightful as you would expect, grand houses and rolling hills. Paired with the costumes you have a wonderful overall feel of the era, though I would say that the costumes do have an almost modern touch to them that makes them very noticeable.
The charming base for Austen's novel has to battle with Emma's Mean Girl performance and the slightly overlong runtime, while it does give a mildly entertaining watch it's cowering in the shadow of Little Women and I don't think I'd need to see it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/emma-movie-review.html
In old English society what was a girl to do with her spare time to stay entertained? Read, learn the piano, paint... act as matchmaker to her friends. When Emma Woodhouse sees a flicker of promise or flirtation she jumps at the chance to fan the flames of romance between her friends and acquaintances, but when wires get crossed and misunderstandings occur, things begin to crack.
I always had the impression that Emma was a light comedy drama from hearing people talk about it, and while that did come across, I was surprised to come out feeling negatively towards my namesake. I had assumed that Emma was a delightful and whimsical character [as most Emmas are] and when I spent a lot of the film feeling like she was, frankly, a bit of a bitch, I wanted to banish her from the exclusive "Emma Club". Apart from besmirching the good name the attitude didn't seem to fit with the humour of the film.
Emma. is charming, but it didn't quite get me over the line. There seemed little reason for it to be over 2 hours long, while most of the film was engaging you could have taken out 15 minutes or so and tightened it up, I genuinely think that would have added a star to my rating.
Actually, hold off on that star for a moment, let's talk about the casting first.
Rupert Graves, yeeeeeeeeeeees. That's it for him, he's a delight, put him in everything.
Bill Night and Miranda Hart both gave great comedic performances, with Hart also getting an agonising scene that got me right in the feels. Their talent for humour added a great lightness to the film and was perfectly aligned to the period setting.
Johnny Flynn, or Mr Tasty Debrief for the Cineworld-goers out there. He was tastefully de-briefed, and the reason for the card warning: "Brief natural nudity". Flynn had some good moments, particularly around the picnic scene but for me this strong character becomes too sappy as we roll downhill to the ending.
Emma herself, Anya Taylor-Joy... I have already said that I found Emma to be a bit of a bitch, for the light-hearted nature of the film I really felt the time was off. I know there isn't a lot that would be different in this setting to modern day but I found the sly nature to feel far more modern than everything else. I think that is mainly down to the casting, Taylor-Joy's acting frequently has that vibe too it and it doesn't always endear me to her films, this makes me slightly nervous to see her in Radioactive and The New Mutants over the next couple of months.
The setting is of course as delightful as you would expect, grand houses and rolling hills. Paired with the costumes you have a wonderful overall feel of the era, though I would say that the costumes do have an almost modern touch to them that makes them very noticeable.
The charming base for Austen's novel has to battle with Emma's Mean Girl performance and the slightly overlong runtime, while it does give a mildly entertaining watch it's cowering in the shadow of Little Women and I don't think I'd need to see it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/emma-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wild Rose (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Three Chords and the Truth.
BAFTA named Jessie Buckley as one of their “Rising Stars” for 2019, and here she proves why.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Tusk (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
To legions of his many fans, writer, director, producer, and podcaster Kevin Smith is a man fanboys find easy to root for. His films have become pop-culture gold to comic book, science fiction, and general geekdom fans the world over. Smith has built a career on independent films with characters that are as real as they are raw and raunchy. The crude nature of his jokes often put him in a “love them or hate them” category for many critics as it is definitely not a style that is for the masses. That being said, the films are witty, honest, and most times relatable, no matter how bad the situations and the characters become. Recently, Smith took a detour to the darker side with his film “Red State” that looked at a group of kids who became the victims of a fanatical cult leader and his followers.
While Smith was reportedly working to get funding for “Clerks 3”, an idea was presented to him during his Smodcast about a guy in rural Canada who is offering free room and board to anybody who would live with him on the condition that they wear a walrus costume from time to time. Buoyed by his followers on Twitter, Smith decided to make a horror film based on the situation even after learning that the incident in question was the result of a prank by a comedian.
In his new film Tusk, we are introduced to a successful podcaster named Wallace (Justin Long), who along with his costar Teddy (Haley Joel Osment), run a show called the Not See Party, whose name leads to several double takes and comical and uncomfortable situations down the line. Wallace’s girlfriend Ally (Genesis Rodriguez) wishes to accompany Wallace to his trip up to Canada in order to interview someone for a show.
Since Teddy is not a flyer, Wallace travels to locations to interview people and then in turn tells the stories to Teddy so the two can comment about them on air. Ally longs for the Wallace of old who was a struggling comedian as she believes that the successful Wallace is not that fun to be around as he no longer makes her a priority in life. Wallace admits as much when he discloses a series of infidelities to Teddy and dismisses them as nothing more than clearing of the head while traveling or before doing a live show for an audience.
Upon arriving in Manitoba, Wallace learns that his intended interview has befallen tragedy and faced without a topic for his next show, Wallace is intrigued by a flyer from a man offering room and board as well as plenty of stories.
Wallace makes contact with the individual and travels two hours into rural Manitoba at night to meet the man at his expansive estate. Upon meeting Howard Howe (Michael Parks), Wallace is captivated by the elderly wheelchair-bound gentleman and his tales of life at sea including meeting Ernest Hemingway during the war. As Wallace sat spellbound by the tales Howard is telling him, he soon falls unconscious as a result of being drugged by his host. Things take a very dark turn the following morning when Howard learns that he has lost a leg of which Howard proclaims was the tragic result of a spider bite. Things become a living nightmare as Wallace quickly learns just how devious and diabolical Michael’s plans are for him and trapped in a remote area his humanity and faith are slowly stripped away by the situation he finds himself in.
Teddy and Ally travel to Manitoba due to a frantic call Wallace makes and not finding much assistance from the local authorities, turn to quirky and eccentric former homicide detective Guy LaPointe (Johnny Depp), who fears that Wallace has become the victim of an elusive killer whom LaPointe has been trying to find for years.
What follows is a dark, disturbing, and utterly captivating thriller in a race against time with the very essence and humanity of Wallace hanging in the balance.
While Smith inserts his trademark humor into the film, this is very much a psychological thriller and not a comedy. Depp does a fantastic job and is almost unrecognizable in his role as a homicide detective who is scheduled to appear in a subsequent film currently shooting. While it seemed a bit of a stretch that Ally would want be involved with Wallace, there was nonetheless a good bit of chemistry between them even though the majority of their scenes are shown via flashback.
Long and Parks propel the story as it is pretty much about the dramatic struggle between the two of them. Parks is captivating and creepy while the brash Wallace gets a lesson in humanity and what truly matters in life. While some will no doubt find the subject matter highly disturbing and may be quick to dismiss the film, this is one of the more clever and enjoyable thrillers in recent years and proves that Smith is a filmmaker capable of doing things other than his trademark comedies and should be encouraged to continue to broaden his horizons.
As it stands the film should delight fans of Smith but also allows him to expand his audience into new areas as this truly is one of the more memorable and entertaining films of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/09/19/tusk/
While Smith was reportedly working to get funding for “Clerks 3”, an idea was presented to him during his Smodcast about a guy in rural Canada who is offering free room and board to anybody who would live with him on the condition that they wear a walrus costume from time to time. Buoyed by his followers on Twitter, Smith decided to make a horror film based on the situation even after learning that the incident in question was the result of a prank by a comedian.
In his new film Tusk, we are introduced to a successful podcaster named Wallace (Justin Long), who along with his costar Teddy (Haley Joel Osment), run a show called the Not See Party, whose name leads to several double takes and comical and uncomfortable situations down the line. Wallace’s girlfriend Ally (Genesis Rodriguez) wishes to accompany Wallace to his trip up to Canada in order to interview someone for a show.
Since Teddy is not a flyer, Wallace travels to locations to interview people and then in turn tells the stories to Teddy so the two can comment about them on air. Ally longs for the Wallace of old who was a struggling comedian as she believes that the successful Wallace is not that fun to be around as he no longer makes her a priority in life. Wallace admits as much when he discloses a series of infidelities to Teddy and dismisses them as nothing more than clearing of the head while traveling or before doing a live show for an audience.
Upon arriving in Manitoba, Wallace learns that his intended interview has befallen tragedy and faced without a topic for his next show, Wallace is intrigued by a flyer from a man offering room and board as well as plenty of stories.
Wallace makes contact with the individual and travels two hours into rural Manitoba at night to meet the man at his expansive estate. Upon meeting Howard Howe (Michael Parks), Wallace is captivated by the elderly wheelchair-bound gentleman and his tales of life at sea including meeting Ernest Hemingway during the war. As Wallace sat spellbound by the tales Howard is telling him, he soon falls unconscious as a result of being drugged by his host. Things take a very dark turn the following morning when Howard learns that he has lost a leg of which Howard proclaims was the tragic result of a spider bite. Things become a living nightmare as Wallace quickly learns just how devious and diabolical Michael’s plans are for him and trapped in a remote area his humanity and faith are slowly stripped away by the situation he finds himself in.
Teddy and Ally travel to Manitoba due to a frantic call Wallace makes and not finding much assistance from the local authorities, turn to quirky and eccentric former homicide detective Guy LaPointe (Johnny Depp), who fears that Wallace has become the victim of an elusive killer whom LaPointe has been trying to find for years.
What follows is a dark, disturbing, and utterly captivating thriller in a race against time with the very essence and humanity of Wallace hanging in the balance.
While Smith inserts his trademark humor into the film, this is very much a psychological thriller and not a comedy. Depp does a fantastic job and is almost unrecognizable in his role as a homicide detective who is scheduled to appear in a subsequent film currently shooting. While it seemed a bit of a stretch that Ally would want be involved with Wallace, there was nonetheless a good bit of chemistry between them even though the majority of their scenes are shown via flashback.
Long and Parks propel the story as it is pretty much about the dramatic struggle between the two of them. Parks is captivating and creepy while the brash Wallace gets a lesson in humanity and what truly matters in life. While some will no doubt find the subject matter highly disturbing and may be quick to dismiss the film, this is one of the more clever and enjoyable thrillers in recent years and proves that Smith is a filmmaker capable of doing things other than his trademark comedies and should be encouraged to continue to broaden his horizons.
As it stands the film should delight fans of Smith but also allows him to expand his audience into new areas as this truly is one of the more memorable and entertaining films of the year.
http://sknr.net/2014/09/19/tusk/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Transcendence (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
First time director and Academy award-winning cinematographer Wally Pfister (Inception, The Dark
Knight Trilogy) takes on an ambitious film both visually and thematically for his first attempt at the
director chair. And while he hits all the visual cues you would expect from someone who has worked
so closely with Christopher Nolan on several films, he does less so when it comes telling us a story
that works in the world that he is presenting to us on screen. And thus this film falls flat, muddled and
fragmented in its story.
Visually the film provides you with framing and movement that that is easy to follow and pleasing to
look at. Along with the score, the look of the film constantly feels like it is taking you somewhere grand
or eye-opening. However it never quite gets there as the passage of time is not clear which creates a
fragmented sense of reality.
Furthermore, because of the structure of the film, the viewer is expecting a form of payoff or definitive
stance from the message of the story. But instead the story falls flat upon itself by not clearly defining
the characters motivations on screen. That is not to say that the film is acted poorly, it is just that
there really isn’t any reason to believe the motivations of the characters because they were never
shown to us. We are supposed to believe that the love between Johnny Depp as Dr. Will Caster, the
leading artificial intelligence researcher and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) is the reason why the plot is
developing. But we are never truly shown the reason why their love is so strong. Furthermore, when Dr.
Caster is shot to stop him from furthering his research, his own wife Evelyn barley even sheds a tear.
Why then would I believe her ridiculous motivations to follow a self-aware artificial intelligence that she
believes is her husband, down the rabbit hole for years without constant reassurance that it is in fact her
Husband, which we never really get any explanation of? Nor do we get any reassurance that she loves
him, other than an occasional had touching a computer screen. I get that people greave in different
ways, but not all ways work on advancing a story on film.
Perhaps the biggest disjointed story development is when the Caster’s close friend and colleague Max
(Paul Bettany) is kidnapped by extremists for two years and no one is looking for him. Furthermore,
when he reappears after being told that two years has passed, he is now trying to stop the evolution of
AI that he helped create without more than a mere sentence. The film keeps reminding us that people
fear what they don’t understand, which is right. I fear I don’t understand the motivation behind the
characters without being shown or explained what happened to them or why they are doing something.
As if this was not enough, at no real point did any of ancillary characters matter. Cillian Murphy
represents the government at large as the lone FBI agent in the film. But his purpose is meaningless as
he does nothing to stop anything suspicious until the final act. What is worse, is that he was brought in
to stop the extremist (that are mostly forgotten after the first act) but then sides with them to attempt
to stop the AI. The same AI he let grow out of control in the first place.
I am not even going to go into the “pod-people” plot as it seemed as a way to try to advance the story
to an ending. As if these good scientists, who are just trying to help the world, have crossed the line or
something. This, which Evelyn still doesn’t see a problem with and continues to allow for years until
Morgan Freeman shows up and tells her to get out of her situation and away from the AI. At which
point, she mulls it over for perhaps a day and decides she is done. Ugh. You have come this far with no
reason, why stop? Just keep going?
I, like most movie goers, am willing to suspend my disbelief as long as the reasons for what I am
watching on screen make sense in the world shown to me. A few scenes here or there that provided
explanation or reason why is should care about these characters would have been appreciated and
helped this movie be less disjointed and muddled. Because of this, I really cannot recommend this film
to anyone except those who want to think abstractly about AI. But be warned, thematically, there is no
clear stance on weather that is good or bad either.
Knight Trilogy) takes on an ambitious film both visually and thematically for his first attempt at the
director chair. And while he hits all the visual cues you would expect from someone who has worked
so closely with Christopher Nolan on several films, he does less so when it comes telling us a story
that works in the world that he is presenting to us on screen. And thus this film falls flat, muddled and
fragmented in its story.
Visually the film provides you with framing and movement that that is easy to follow and pleasing to
look at. Along with the score, the look of the film constantly feels like it is taking you somewhere grand
or eye-opening. However it never quite gets there as the passage of time is not clear which creates a
fragmented sense of reality.
Furthermore, because of the structure of the film, the viewer is expecting a form of payoff or definitive
stance from the message of the story. But instead the story falls flat upon itself by not clearly defining
the characters motivations on screen. That is not to say that the film is acted poorly, it is just that
there really isn’t any reason to believe the motivations of the characters because they were never
shown to us. We are supposed to believe that the love between Johnny Depp as Dr. Will Caster, the
leading artificial intelligence researcher and his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) is the reason why the plot is
developing. But we are never truly shown the reason why their love is so strong. Furthermore, when Dr.
Caster is shot to stop him from furthering his research, his own wife Evelyn barley even sheds a tear.
Why then would I believe her ridiculous motivations to follow a self-aware artificial intelligence that she
believes is her husband, down the rabbit hole for years without constant reassurance that it is in fact her
Husband, which we never really get any explanation of? Nor do we get any reassurance that she loves
him, other than an occasional had touching a computer screen. I get that people greave in different
ways, but not all ways work on advancing a story on film.
Perhaps the biggest disjointed story development is when the Caster’s close friend and colleague Max
(Paul Bettany) is kidnapped by extremists for two years and no one is looking for him. Furthermore,
when he reappears after being told that two years has passed, he is now trying to stop the evolution of
AI that he helped create without more than a mere sentence. The film keeps reminding us that people
fear what they don’t understand, which is right. I fear I don’t understand the motivation behind the
characters without being shown or explained what happened to them or why they are doing something.
As if this was not enough, at no real point did any of ancillary characters matter. Cillian Murphy
represents the government at large as the lone FBI agent in the film. But his purpose is meaningless as
he does nothing to stop anything suspicious until the final act. What is worse, is that he was brought in
to stop the extremist (that are mostly forgotten after the first act) but then sides with them to attempt
to stop the AI. The same AI he let grow out of control in the first place.
I am not even going to go into the “pod-people” plot as it seemed as a way to try to advance the story
to an ending. As if these good scientists, who are just trying to help the world, have crossed the line or
something. This, which Evelyn still doesn’t see a problem with and continues to allow for years until
Morgan Freeman shows up and tells her to get out of her situation and away from the AI. At which
point, she mulls it over for perhaps a day and decides she is done. Ugh. You have come this far with no
reason, why stop? Just keep going?
I, like most movie goers, am willing to suspend my disbelief as long as the reasons for what I am
watching on screen make sense in the world shown to me. A few scenes here or there that provided
explanation or reason why is should care about these characters would have been appreciated and
helped this movie be less disjointed and muddled. Because of this, I really cannot recommend this film
to anyone except those who want to think abstractly about AI. But be warned, thematically, there is no
clear stance on weather that is good or bad either.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
Joaquin's Performance Elevates This Film
Give Joaquin Phoenix the Oscar right now. His bravura performance as the titular character in JOKER is one for the ages. He is on the screen in every scene of this film and captivates and repulses you at the same time. This performance raises this film to another level.
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)