Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Lovely in every sense of the word
2016 really does belong to Disney. The House of Mouse has been churning out some incredible films this year with the live-action remake of The Jungle Book proving sceptical audiences (and critics) completely wrong.
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
It seems recently that the Disney vault has exploded with the release of several of their classic animated films being remade. Unfortunately, the classics that have inspired these remakes have been redone with mixed results. The original The Lion King was released back in 1994 and it’s hard to believe that I was a junior in college when I saw it. Since that time, we’ve seen various iterations of the classic story, a few direct to VCR sequels and the awe-inspiring Broadway stage production (which if you are a serious fan of the movie I encourage you to see). It seems odd to discuss the plot of a movie that I’m certain everyone reading this has seen at least once (or a dozen times over). To the uninformed however, The Lion King is about a young cub named Simba (JD McCrary as the young voice and Donald Glover as the adult) who suffers the tragic loss of his father Mufasa (James Earl Jones) at the paws of his evil uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Scar convinces Simba that he is responsible for his father’s death and that he must leave the pride and never return. With the help of his faithful friends Timon (Billy Eichner), the lovable warthog Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), the ever wise Zazu (John Oliver) and his budding queen Nala (Beyoncé’) he learns that true courage comes from within and realizes he must face Scar if he is ever to bring peace back to the Pride Lands.
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
The Marvel touch
The first thing I’m going to tell you about Spider-Man: Homecoming is that it has been gloriously undersold in its uninspiring trailers and promotional posters. In fact, most of the marketing materials shown made it look like this would be Iron Man 4 ft. Peter Parker. Thankfully that’s not the case.
The second thing I’ll tell you is that Tom Holland’s turn as Peter Parker is very good indeed. But is he better than Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield? Well, for that you’ll have to read on.
Still buzzing from his experiences with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War, young Peter Parker (Tom Holland) returns home to live with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). Under the watchful eye of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Peter starts to embrace Spider-Man. He also tries to return to his normal life — distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just a bargain basement superhero. However, when danger emerges in the shape of the Vulture (Michael Keaton), Peter must soon put his powers to the test.
Jon Watts directs not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but probably the best film to come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy. That is by no means and easy thing to achieve, but by golly he’s done it.
The best Marvel films don’t shout about their superhero roots. By that I mean Captain America: the Winter Soldier was first and foremost a heist movie and Guardians of the Galaxy was an epic space opera. Here, Watts and his two writers turn Spider-Man: Homecoming into a cheesy, fun high-school romance and it succeeds at that beautifully.
But is it a good superhero flick? In a word, yes. The action is shot exceptionally well with very little nonsensical shaky cam, the pacing is spot on; in fact it may be one of the best films I have ever seen for pacing and the characters are all utterly believable.
Tom Holland is, without a doubt the best iteration of Peter Parker ever put to the big screen. He is the school geek that the character always should have been. Gone are Tobey Maguire’s ridiculous facial expressions and Andrew Garfield’s unrealistic ‘high school nerd’ persona.
Elsewhere, Michael Keaton avoids the Marvel villain trap and becomes the universe’s best antagonist since Loki. It would be easy for Vulture to come across ridiculous rather than menacing and Keaton gets the latter absolutely spot on. In particular, a pivotal turning point in the film’s third act is exquisitely written and truly intimidating.
It’s not all good news unfortunately. Like a broken record, I have to mention the obligatory CGI-heavy finale. Thankfully though, the story is nicely twisted to give the scenes emotional gravitas. I’m also not sold on Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, but this may come with time. And if I’m really nit-picking, there’s a little too much obvious product placement for Audi.
So, I’ve managed to get through a full review with only a small paragraph of negative points, that doesn’t happen very often. Something else that doesn’t happen very often is for me to award a film a full five stars. On this occasion however, the Marvel touch has well and truly created a corker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/06/spider-man-homecoming-review/
The second thing I’ll tell you is that Tom Holland’s turn as Peter Parker is very good indeed. But is he better than Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield? Well, for that you’ll have to read on.
Still buzzing from his experiences with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War, young Peter Parker (Tom Holland) returns home to live with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). Under the watchful eye of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Peter starts to embrace Spider-Man. He also tries to return to his normal life — distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just a bargain basement superhero. However, when danger emerges in the shape of the Vulture (Michael Keaton), Peter must soon put his powers to the test.
Jon Watts directs not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but probably the best film to come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy. That is by no means and easy thing to achieve, but by golly he’s done it.
The best Marvel films don’t shout about their superhero roots. By that I mean Captain America: the Winter Soldier was first and foremost a heist movie and Guardians of the Galaxy was an epic space opera. Here, Watts and his two writers turn Spider-Man: Homecoming into a cheesy, fun high-school romance and it succeeds at that beautifully.
But is it a good superhero flick? In a word, yes. The action is shot exceptionally well with very little nonsensical shaky cam, the pacing is spot on; in fact it may be one of the best films I have ever seen for pacing and the characters are all utterly believable.
Tom Holland is, without a doubt the best iteration of Peter Parker ever put to the big screen. He is the school geek that the character always should have been. Gone are Tobey Maguire’s ridiculous facial expressions and Andrew Garfield’s unrealistic ‘high school nerd’ persona.
Elsewhere, Michael Keaton avoids the Marvel villain trap and becomes the universe’s best antagonist since Loki. It would be easy for Vulture to come across ridiculous rather than menacing and Keaton gets the latter absolutely spot on. In particular, a pivotal turning point in the film’s third act is exquisitely written and truly intimidating.
It’s not all good news unfortunately. Like a broken record, I have to mention the obligatory CGI-heavy finale. Thankfully though, the story is nicely twisted to give the scenes emotional gravitas. I’m also not sold on Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, but this may come with time. And if I’m really nit-picking, there’s a little too much obvious product placement for Audi.
So, I’ve managed to get through a full review with only a small paragraph of negative points, that doesn’t happen very often. Something else that doesn’t happen very often is for me to award a film a full five stars. On this occasion however, the Marvel touch has well and truly created a corker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/06/spider-man-homecoming-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Aug 23, 2018
You don't have to be a CRA to enjoy this film
I am not Crazy (debatable), Rich (not even close) or Asian (not going to touch that one). So, it was an interesting test to see if I would be entertained by CRAZY RICH ASIANS, a RomCom focused on groups that I am not a part of.
Surprisingly, the answer is not just "yes", it's "heck, yes!"
Based on the bestselling book by Kevin Kwan, Crazy Rich Asians (CRA from hereout) tells the story of Asian-American College Economics Professor Rachel Chu (Constance Wu) who heads to Singapore for a wedding with her boyfriend, Nick Young (Henry Golding) unknowingly heading into the "belly of the beast" of his ultra-rich family and the various relatives, friends and hangers-on who are not shy about letting Rachel know if they approve of her.
This film is being hailed as a landmark in Cinema, for a mainstream movie is filled with nothing by Asian actors and actresses, and it acquits itself nicely not just as a mainstream film filled with Asian actors and actresses, but as a GOOD film regardless of the nationalities of the people portrayed and the actors portraying them.
For the most part, Director Jon M. Chu has crafted a beautiful, funny film that sends a message and brings the viewer into a world that is, heretofore, not seen on the screen. And he brings this to the viewer with a loving eye and deep, soulful heart that shines throughout.
As the lead couple, Wu and Golding are charming, charismatic and VERY GOOD TO LOOK AT, they are an easy pair of people to spend some time with. Most of the other actors on the screen are very well cast and some standouts include Nico Santos as Oliver and good ol' Ken Jeong as Wye Mun Goh.
But it is the work of three very good, very different, but very PROFESSIONAL actresses that caught my eye. The first is Awkwafina (OCEAN'S 8) as an old College roommate of Rachel's who is the funniest thing in the film (think Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids) she brings a much needed level of irreverence to the stodginess of Nick's family. Gemma Chan (TV's HUMANS) carries a good deal of the dramatic and emotional weight of this film as Nick's Sister - a "cool on the outside, emotionally troubled on the inside" soul who steals any scene she is in. I think we have a real star in the making with her.
And then there is Michelle Yeoh (CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON) as Nick's "Tiger Mom" who disapproves of his girlfriend and her "American ways". She's a traditionalist who gave up quite a bit for her family and expects the same level of familiar commitment from her children. It would be easy to make this character one-dimensional, but in Yeoh's capable hands, it is anything but.
It's not a perfect film - I felt it dragged a bit in the middle - but the beginning and (especially) the last 1/2 hour of this film is funny, poignant and emotional (bring your hankies - you're gonna need them).
Oh...and stay through the first part of the credits, there is a scene about 2 minutes in that sets up the sequel (there are 3 books in this series).
This is a good film for EVERYONE - whether your are a CRA or not!
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Surprisingly, the answer is not just "yes", it's "heck, yes!"
Based on the bestselling book by Kevin Kwan, Crazy Rich Asians (CRA from hereout) tells the story of Asian-American College Economics Professor Rachel Chu (Constance Wu) who heads to Singapore for a wedding with her boyfriend, Nick Young (Henry Golding) unknowingly heading into the "belly of the beast" of his ultra-rich family and the various relatives, friends and hangers-on who are not shy about letting Rachel know if they approve of her.
This film is being hailed as a landmark in Cinema, for a mainstream movie is filled with nothing by Asian actors and actresses, and it acquits itself nicely not just as a mainstream film filled with Asian actors and actresses, but as a GOOD film regardless of the nationalities of the people portrayed and the actors portraying them.
For the most part, Director Jon M. Chu has crafted a beautiful, funny film that sends a message and brings the viewer into a world that is, heretofore, not seen on the screen. And he brings this to the viewer with a loving eye and deep, soulful heart that shines throughout.
As the lead couple, Wu and Golding are charming, charismatic and VERY GOOD TO LOOK AT, they are an easy pair of people to spend some time with. Most of the other actors on the screen are very well cast and some standouts include Nico Santos as Oliver and good ol' Ken Jeong as Wye Mun Goh.
But it is the work of three very good, very different, but very PROFESSIONAL actresses that caught my eye. The first is Awkwafina (OCEAN'S 8) as an old College roommate of Rachel's who is the funniest thing in the film (think Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids) she brings a much needed level of irreverence to the stodginess of Nick's family. Gemma Chan (TV's HUMANS) carries a good deal of the dramatic and emotional weight of this film as Nick's Sister - a "cool on the outside, emotionally troubled on the inside" soul who steals any scene she is in. I think we have a real star in the making with her.
And then there is Michelle Yeoh (CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON) as Nick's "Tiger Mom" who disapproves of his girlfriend and her "American ways". She's a traditionalist who gave up quite a bit for her family and expects the same level of familiar commitment from her children. It would be easy to make this character one-dimensional, but in Yeoh's capable hands, it is anything but.
It's not a perfect film - I felt it dragged a bit in the middle - but the beginning and (especially) the last 1/2 hour of this film is funny, poignant and emotional (bring your hankies - you're gonna need them).
Oh...and stay through the first part of the credits, there is a scene about 2 minutes in that sets up the sequel (there are 3 books in this series).
This is a good film for EVERYONE - whether your are a CRA or not!
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Jungle Book (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Disney’s animated take on Rudyard Kipling’s classic The Jungle Book is a timeless classic. My mother is even fond of telling me about the Jungle Book theme I had in my room as an infant. So it was with great interest that we covered the new live-action film version which continues a successful tradition for Disney of adapting their animated classics into live-action features. For those not familiar with the story it involves a young boy named Mowgli (Neel Sethi), who was found alone in the jungle by a panther named Bagheera (Ben Kingsley), Mowgli is put in the care of a Wolfpack under the custody of Raksha (Lupita Nyong”o), who raised him as one of her own in the ways of the pack.
Mowgli grew and thrived under this arrangement and was loved and accepted by those in his group. Unfortunately Mowgli eventually draws the attention of a tiger named Shere Khan (Idris Elba), who has a deep disliking and fear of humans and what they’re capable of and thus demands that Mowgli be turned over to him so he removed the human threat from the jungle. Unwilling to let Mowgli be killed, Bagheeera agrees to take the boy to the Human Village where he will have the protection and guidance of his people going forward.
As they embark on a journey filled with sights, sounds, splendor, and danger, they meet all sorts of new characters along the way. From the lovable Baloo (Bill Murray), to the dangerous Kaa (Scarlett Johansson), their adventure is anything but boring especially with Shere Khan constantly lurking and new dangers and surprises around every corner.
Director Jon Favreau keeps the film in line with the source material and offers a lavish and fun production that while heavy on CGI imagery never overshadows the focus being on the characters as they are what propel the story even though the jungle itself very much is a central character to the story. There is action and adventure and parent should be warned that there are a few parts that may be a bit too intense for younger viewers. That being said, the film is just an absolute delight from beginning to end and moves at a brisk enough pace that never drags. There are a couple of musical numbers included which thankfully do not undermine some of the more action intense sequences of the film which had been ramped up considerably from their animated version counterparts.
There’s been talk that a sequel is early in the planning stages and I for one would definitely love to see more adventures especially since it’s reported that the same team that brought this to the screen would be involved in the sequel. The cast is incredibly strong and supports one another very well and what makes this film so great is that like many of the Disney classics it has the broad generational appeal that will allow adults to really enjoy the film rather than feel that they’re simply along to keep the kids happy.
Disney has announced that they would plan to do several live-action adaptations of their animated classics and based on their recent track record of success, in doing so I can’t wait to see what they have next as “The Jungle Book” is an absolute delight that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2016/04/14/the-jungle-book/
Mowgli grew and thrived under this arrangement and was loved and accepted by those in his group. Unfortunately Mowgli eventually draws the attention of a tiger named Shere Khan (Idris Elba), who has a deep disliking and fear of humans and what they’re capable of and thus demands that Mowgli be turned over to him so he removed the human threat from the jungle. Unwilling to let Mowgli be killed, Bagheeera agrees to take the boy to the Human Village where he will have the protection and guidance of his people going forward.
As they embark on a journey filled with sights, sounds, splendor, and danger, they meet all sorts of new characters along the way. From the lovable Baloo (Bill Murray), to the dangerous Kaa (Scarlett Johansson), their adventure is anything but boring especially with Shere Khan constantly lurking and new dangers and surprises around every corner.
Director Jon Favreau keeps the film in line with the source material and offers a lavish and fun production that while heavy on CGI imagery never overshadows the focus being on the characters as they are what propel the story even though the jungle itself very much is a central character to the story. There is action and adventure and parent should be warned that there are a few parts that may be a bit too intense for younger viewers. That being said, the film is just an absolute delight from beginning to end and moves at a brisk enough pace that never drags. There are a couple of musical numbers included which thankfully do not undermine some of the more action intense sequences of the film which had been ramped up considerably from their animated version counterparts.
There’s been talk that a sequel is early in the planning stages and I for one would definitely love to see more adventures especially since it’s reported that the same team that brought this to the screen would be involved in the sequel. The cast is incredibly strong and supports one another very well and what makes this film so great is that like many of the Disney classics it has the broad generational appeal that will allow adults to really enjoy the film rather than feel that they’re simply along to keep the kids happy.
Disney has announced that they would plan to do several live-action adaptations of their animated classics and based on their recent track record of success, in doing so I can’t wait to see what they have next as “The Jungle Book” is an absolute delight that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2016/04/14/the-jungle-book/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated In the Heights (2021) in Movies
Jun 21, 2021
Music and lyrics are fantastic (1 more)
Choreography
Lin-Manuel Miranda's high octane musical hits the heights.
"In the Heights" follows the hopes and dreams of a group of ordinary but ambitious Latinx youngsters, living their lives as best they can in the poor neighbourhood of Washington Heights in New York. They all have their own 'El Sueñito' - a little dream - of what they want to achieve.
Positives:
- A "proper" musical, with a large percentage of high-octane song and dance numbers.
-As with "Hamilton", "In the Heights" features some truly clever rap-style lyrics - lyrics so clever that you gasp at the way in which they trip off the singer's tongue. At one point, Carla (Stephanie Beatriz) sings "My mom is Dominican-Cuban, My dad is from Chile and P. R., which means: I'm Chile-...Dominica-Rican! But I always say I'm from Queens!". Glorious stuff.
- The dancing is stupendous. The choreography team is led by Christopher Scott, and he joyfully brings back the large set piece dances that we used to see in movies of old. The Esther Williams style swimming routines even make a spectacular return in a glorious Lido sequence (although I could have personally done without the dislocating contortionist dancers here!).
- The four young people taking the leads are all extremely personable (as well as being very good looking). Anthony Ramos in particular shows real star quality, those mesmeric eyes holding your attention for every moment he's on screen. You get the feeling that Lin-Manuel Miranda (whose superfluous minor role could have usefully ended up on the cutting room floor) was itching to play the lead but was just "too old man"!
- It was also great to see a range of roles for older women as well, with the dramatic sequence with Olga Merediz, the neighbourhood saint and guardian Claudia, being a highpoint in the movie for me.
Negatives:
- When you step back and analyse it, the story is pretty slight. You are distracted from this by all the razzle-dazzle going on, but having a bit more meat on the bone would have been welcome. This is particularly the case, since....
- At 143 minutes, I have to say that the movie outstayed its welcome for me by about 20 or 30 minutes. If the movie had been tightened up a bit and shortened, it would I think have been much improved.
Summary Thoughts on "In the Heights": This is a musical for those people who say "They don't make musicals like that anymore". High octane and full of noise and colour, its a spectacular that doesn't disappoint. The quirkiness of "Crazy Rich Asians" (which Jon M. Chu also directed) is on full display in some of the sequences, which are cleverly filmed. It's a movie that had me periodically grinning, not just at the story or the songs but at the movie craft on show.
Is it a bit of an 'Emperor's New Clothes', given the shallowness of the story? Yes, perhaps. And does it laugh in the face of my 90-minute movie ideal? Definitely. But it's still well worth the price of your movie ticket..... and this IS a movie that demands to be watched on the BIG SCREEN to get the full effect.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/21/in-the-heights-lin-manuel-mirandas-high-octane-musical-hits-the-heights/. Thanks).
Positives:
- A "proper" musical, with a large percentage of high-octane song and dance numbers.
-As with "Hamilton", "In the Heights" features some truly clever rap-style lyrics - lyrics so clever that you gasp at the way in which they trip off the singer's tongue. At one point, Carla (Stephanie Beatriz) sings "My mom is Dominican-Cuban, My dad is from Chile and P. R., which means: I'm Chile-...Dominica-Rican! But I always say I'm from Queens!". Glorious stuff.
- The dancing is stupendous. The choreography team is led by Christopher Scott, and he joyfully brings back the large set piece dances that we used to see in movies of old. The Esther Williams style swimming routines even make a spectacular return in a glorious Lido sequence (although I could have personally done without the dislocating contortionist dancers here!).
- The four young people taking the leads are all extremely personable (as well as being very good looking). Anthony Ramos in particular shows real star quality, those mesmeric eyes holding your attention for every moment he's on screen. You get the feeling that Lin-Manuel Miranda (whose superfluous minor role could have usefully ended up on the cutting room floor) was itching to play the lead but was just "too old man"!
- It was also great to see a range of roles for older women as well, with the dramatic sequence with Olga Merediz, the neighbourhood saint and guardian Claudia, being a highpoint in the movie for me.
Negatives:
- When you step back and analyse it, the story is pretty slight. You are distracted from this by all the razzle-dazzle going on, but having a bit more meat on the bone would have been welcome. This is particularly the case, since....
- At 143 minutes, I have to say that the movie outstayed its welcome for me by about 20 or 30 minutes. If the movie had been tightened up a bit and shortened, it would I think have been much improved.
Summary Thoughts on "In the Heights": This is a musical for those people who say "They don't make musicals like that anymore". High octane and full of noise and colour, its a spectacular that doesn't disappoint. The quirkiness of "Crazy Rich Asians" (which Jon M. Chu also directed) is on full display in some of the sequences, which are cleverly filmed. It's a movie that had me periodically grinning, not just at the story or the songs but at the movie craft on show.
Is it a bit of an 'Emperor's New Clothes', given the shallowness of the story? Yes, perhaps. And does it laugh in the face of my 90-minute movie ideal? Definitely. But it's still well worth the price of your movie ticket..... and this IS a movie that demands to be watched on the BIG SCREEN to get the full effect.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/21/in-the-heights-lin-manuel-mirandas-high-octane-musical-hits-the-heights/. Thanks).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Licorice Pizza (2021) in Movies
Mar 9, 2022
Disjointed
The films of Director Paul Thomas Anderson is a bit of an “acquired taste”, moviegoers generally fall into one of 2 camps. (1) those that LOVE what he does (and thinks he is one of the greatest Directors of All Time) and (2) those that don’t.
I thought I fell into the 2nd camp, but upon reviewing his portfolio of work for this review (HARD EIGHT, BOOGIE NIGHTS, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD), I realized that I pretty much liked whatever he had done, but with his last few films (THE MASTER, INHERENT VICE, THE PHANTOM THREAD) I am finding that “PTA” (as his fans call him) is becoming just a little too “artsy” and pretentious for my tastes. He has fallen too in love with his material - and artistic style - to objectively look at a film and realize that it needs to move along at a brisker pace.
Such is the case with his latest film, LICORICE PIZZA.
A memory of his youth, LICORICE PIZZA follows the relationship of a pair of mismatched young adults as they work their way through the early 1970’s in search of themselves and love.
This film is a series of scenes stitched together to tell a story and the problem with it is that it made this film seem disjointed. The central “get together already” love story of the main 2 characters is supposed to be the through-line of the film, but when this through-line breaks (as it often does here) it is detrimental to the flow of the story.
Based, loosely, on the real-life exploits of PTA’s friend, Producer Gary Goetzman, LICORICE PIZZA stars Cooper Hoffman (son of Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as Gary Valentine and Alana Haim (of the Sister Act Musical Group HAIM) as Alana as they have an on-again/off-again friendship that SHOULD BE a romance, but isn’t (kind of like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY). They circumnavigate circa 1973 Los Angeles running into fictionalized portrayals of famous people like Producer Jon Peters (Bradley Cooper) and Film Actor Jack Holden (Sean Penn) an amalgamation of William Holden and Steve McQueen.
The central performances of Hoffman and Haim are competent enough, but never rises to anything more than that, which pulls this film down for one or the other of them is in every scene . The various actors doing extended cameos (like Cooper and Penn) seem to be having fun chewing up the scenery, but they are acting in a completely different style of film than Hoffman and Haim are and our 2 leads don’t stand a chance of standing out compared to these over-the-top performances.
Blame for all of this needs to be laid on Anderson (Oscar Nominated for his Direction in this film). He tried to give us a “slice of life” nostalgia piece like AMERICAN GRAFFITI or ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, but he just doesn’t pull it off.
An Oscar Nominee for Best Picture, LICORICE PIZZA seems to be riding the wave of nostalgia both for the times depicted - and the artist who put this film on the screen - but it just isn’t that good of a film.
Letter Grade B- (for Cooper’s and Penn’s scenes in this)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I thought I fell into the 2nd camp, but upon reviewing his portfolio of work for this review (HARD EIGHT, BOOGIE NIGHTS, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD), I realized that I pretty much liked whatever he had done, but with his last few films (THE MASTER, INHERENT VICE, THE PHANTOM THREAD) I am finding that “PTA” (as his fans call him) is becoming just a little too “artsy” and pretentious for my tastes. He has fallen too in love with his material - and artistic style - to objectively look at a film and realize that it needs to move along at a brisker pace.
Such is the case with his latest film, LICORICE PIZZA.
A memory of his youth, LICORICE PIZZA follows the relationship of a pair of mismatched young adults as they work their way through the early 1970’s in search of themselves and love.
This film is a series of scenes stitched together to tell a story and the problem with it is that it made this film seem disjointed. The central “get together already” love story of the main 2 characters is supposed to be the through-line of the film, but when this through-line breaks (as it often does here) it is detrimental to the flow of the story.
Based, loosely, on the real-life exploits of PTA’s friend, Producer Gary Goetzman, LICORICE PIZZA stars Cooper Hoffman (son of Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as Gary Valentine and Alana Haim (of the Sister Act Musical Group HAIM) as Alana as they have an on-again/off-again friendship that SHOULD BE a romance, but isn’t (kind of like WHEN HARRY MET SALLY). They circumnavigate circa 1973 Los Angeles running into fictionalized portrayals of famous people like Producer Jon Peters (Bradley Cooper) and Film Actor Jack Holden (Sean Penn) an amalgamation of William Holden and Steve McQueen.
The central performances of Hoffman and Haim are competent enough, but never rises to anything more than that, which pulls this film down for one or the other of them is in every scene . The various actors doing extended cameos (like Cooper and Penn) seem to be having fun chewing up the scenery, but they are acting in a completely different style of film than Hoffman and Haim are and our 2 leads don’t stand a chance of standing out compared to these over-the-top performances.
Blame for all of this needs to be laid on Anderson (Oscar Nominated for his Direction in this film). He tried to give us a “slice of life” nostalgia piece like AMERICAN GRAFFITI or ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, but he just doesn’t pull it off.
An Oscar Nominee for Best Picture, LICORICE PIZZA seems to be riding the wave of nostalgia both for the times depicted - and the artist who put this film on the screen - but it just isn’t that good of a film.
Letter Grade B- (for Cooper’s and Penn’s scenes in this)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Those Who Wish Me Dead (2021) in Movies
May 19, 2021
Disappointing
And…we have the “leader in the clubhouse” for the WORST FILM OF 2021.
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Crazy Rich Asians, Kevin Kwan’s romantic comedy has been delivered to the theaters with all of the glamour and glitz portrayed in the bestselling novel. This film features an all Asian Cast, a rarity, since the last American studio film to feature that was Joy Luck Club 25 years ago. This movie marks the first time Asians are cast as leads in a romantic comedy.
Rachel Chu’s (Constance Wu) journey to meet her boyfriend Nick Young’s (Henry Golding) family could be a bit of a fish out of water tale. Rachel is the daughter of a Chinese single mother who immigrated to America. Being an economics professor at NYU, is pretty prestigious accomplishment and Rachel loves what she does. She has been seeing Nick for over a year. He has his best friend’s wedding in Singapore and suggests that Rachel comes along to meet his friends and family.
Nick is from a well off family, a subject that he had never mentioned before. The first thing that tips her off is the treatment that they receive on the plane. When Rachel finds out that his family is well off, it does not change their relationship. However, she still does not realize how extensive the family finances are and is definitely not aware of the social status of the Youngs.
Singapore in all of its crisp and elegant beauty is a character in itself. We are taken to the many sites on the island as it is shown to Rachel. From the moment the couple arrive, they are met at the airport by Colin Khoo (Chris Pang), Nick’s best friend the groom and Araminta Lee (Sonoya Mizuno) the bride. They are taken to one of the Hawker’s Centre full of stalls, each specializing in a handful of dishes, some with a Michelin Star. We see an incredible smorgasbord in a quick cut of food porn. Nothing in Rachel’s first taste of town indicates the opulence that is to come.
Rachel goes to see Piek Goh(Awkwafina), her roommate during college. The Goh family is “new wealth” and we see the gilded display throughout to the point of excess. We meet Piek’s parents , Neenah (Chieng Mun Koh) and Wye Mun (Ken Jeong, bringing his brand of weird, creepy and awkward as Piek’s dad). The Gohs welcome Rachel with such warmth and treats her like family. This is where she learns how affluent and respected the Young’s are in Singapore. Piek takes it upon herself to provide her best friend with a fabulous suit of armor and education in order to survive the introduction to the world of the Youngs.
Meeting the Youngs is comparable to being introduced to the Royal Family of Singapore and Rachel was not aware of the social graces that are expected in the circles of the crazy rich. You can see that she is not accustomed to the superabundance that she is witnesses and is a little overwhelmed in trying to adapt. As Nick introduces her to his mother Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh), Rachel immediately gleams that his mother does not like her. Thus begins the power play between them. Eleanor doesn’t think that Rachel is an appropriate candidate to be the future Mrs. Young and Rachel wants to be accepted as she is and now feels the need to prove that she is good enough for Nick.
The only member of Nick’s family that Rachel has met is Astrid Young Teo (Gemma Chan) his cousin. If Eleanor is the Queen, then Astrid is the princess. She doesn’t walk, she glides. The societal cognoscenti hold her in high esteem. The women want to have her style and the men want to have her. With all the grace and beauty, she reigns in the land of the crazy rich. Rachel liked her some much that she says Astrid is who she wants to be when she grows up. Those who think that her life golden, is unaware that she has her own problems.
We are introduced to the wedding party and the extensive lavishness of the super rich of Asia. It may seem ridiculous and an exaggeration, but the lifestyle of the crazy rich and Asian is based on reality. As Rachel carefully steps through the social landmines that have appeared, she becomes more confident in her own ability and recognizes the game and how to play it.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I wanted to see it again to catch all the things that I did not soak in from the first viewing. The story has a great balance of comedy and drama with Ken Jeong and Awkwafina gifting us with hilarious one liners and Constance Wu playing the confident woman learning how to find her footing. Henry Golding does exceptionally well on his first ever feature film, playing the man who has found love outside of the world of the Crazy Rich Asians.
This is an excellent romantic comedy that is served on a golden platter. Jon M. Chu has delivered a wonderfully delicious story that deserve to be watched over and over again. If you are a fan of the romantic comedy genre, take the time with this gem of a movie.
Rachel Chu’s (Constance Wu) journey to meet her boyfriend Nick Young’s (Henry Golding) family could be a bit of a fish out of water tale. Rachel is the daughter of a Chinese single mother who immigrated to America. Being an economics professor at NYU, is pretty prestigious accomplishment and Rachel loves what she does. She has been seeing Nick for over a year. He has his best friend’s wedding in Singapore and suggests that Rachel comes along to meet his friends and family.
Nick is from a well off family, a subject that he had never mentioned before. The first thing that tips her off is the treatment that they receive on the plane. When Rachel finds out that his family is well off, it does not change their relationship. However, she still does not realize how extensive the family finances are and is definitely not aware of the social status of the Youngs.
Singapore in all of its crisp and elegant beauty is a character in itself. We are taken to the many sites on the island as it is shown to Rachel. From the moment the couple arrive, they are met at the airport by Colin Khoo (Chris Pang), Nick’s best friend the groom and Araminta Lee (Sonoya Mizuno) the bride. They are taken to one of the Hawker’s Centre full of stalls, each specializing in a handful of dishes, some with a Michelin Star. We see an incredible smorgasbord in a quick cut of food porn. Nothing in Rachel’s first taste of town indicates the opulence that is to come.
Rachel goes to see Piek Goh(Awkwafina), her roommate during college. The Goh family is “new wealth” and we see the gilded display throughout to the point of excess. We meet Piek’s parents , Neenah (Chieng Mun Koh) and Wye Mun (Ken Jeong, bringing his brand of weird, creepy and awkward as Piek’s dad). The Gohs welcome Rachel with such warmth and treats her like family. This is where she learns how affluent and respected the Young’s are in Singapore. Piek takes it upon herself to provide her best friend with a fabulous suit of armor and education in order to survive the introduction to the world of the Youngs.
Meeting the Youngs is comparable to being introduced to the Royal Family of Singapore and Rachel was not aware of the social graces that are expected in the circles of the crazy rich. You can see that she is not accustomed to the superabundance that she is witnesses and is a little overwhelmed in trying to adapt. As Nick introduces her to his mother Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh), Rachel immediately gleams that his mother does not like her. Thus begins the power play between them. Eleanor doesn’t think that Rachel is an appropriate candidate to be the future Mrs. Young and Rachel wants to be accepted as she is and now feels the need to prove that she is good enough for Nick.
The only member of Nick’s family that Rachel has met is Astrid Young Teo (Gemma Chan) his cousin. If Eleanor is the Queen, then Astrid is the princess. She doesn’t walk, she glides. The societal cognoscenti hold her in high esteem. The women want to have her style and the men want to have her. With all the grace and beauty, she reigns in the land of the crazy rich. Rachel liked her some much that she says Astrid is who she wants to be when she grows up. Those who think that her life golden, is unaware that she has her own problems.
We are introduced to the wedding party and the extensive lavishness of the super rich of Asia. It may seem ridiculous and an exaggeration, but the lifestyle of the crazy rich and Asian is based on reality. As Rachel carefully steps through the social landmines that have appeared, she becomes more confident in her own ability and recognizes the game and how to play it.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I wanted to see it again to catch all the things that I did not soak in from the first viewing. The story has a great balance of comedy and drama with Ken Jeong and Awkwafina gifting us with hilarious one liners and Constance Wu playing the confident woman learning how to find her footing. Henry Golding does exceptionally well on his first ever feature film, playing the man who has found love outside of the world of the Crazy Rich Asians.
This is an excellent romantic comedy that is served on a golden platter. Jon M. Chu has delivered a wonderfully delicious story that deserve to be watched over and over again. If you are a fan of the romantic comedy genre, take the time with this gem of a movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Baby Driver (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A summer film so cool that air-con is optional.
Sorry for the lack of posts folks…. with a holiday in sunny Portugal, I’ve not been to the pics for weeks!
There’s something inherently appealing about the concept of a getaway driver. A skillful ‘bad-boy’, but not normally bad enough to actually DO the nasty crime stuff…. merely be an active accomplice to it. As a result, it’s a subject that the movies have returned to time after time. I’m old and crusty enough to remember being wowed at seeing Ryan O’Neal in Walter Hill’s “Driver” on the big screen in 1978. And well before that, as a kid, my poor departed mother used to be driven crazy by me begging her to take me to see “The Italian Job” (the original 1969 version) YET again… probably the greatest getaway chase in movie history: I must have seen that film at least 20 times in the cinema. Of course more recently we’ve also had Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan in “Drive” on the same theme. Any I’ve forgotten?
But with Edgar Wright at the helm, a big name cast and an enticing trailer, I had high expectations for “Baby Driver” – and boy was I happy! This is such a seriously cool film on so many levels.
Opening with a bank heist followed by a kick-ass car chase, we follow ‘Baby’ (Ansel Elgort, “Allegiant”, “The Fault in our Stars”) as a tinnitus-suffering, music-infused getaway driver under the thumb of the criminal overlord Doc (Kevin Spacey, in icy Frank Underwood mode). Doc recruits an ever-changing mix-tape of villains for each job, including the psychopathic and appropriately named ‘Bats’ (Jamie Foxx, “Sleepless”), the chillingly dangerous Buddy (Jon Hamm, “Mad Men”, “Keeping Up With The Joneses”) and his “Bonnie-style” wife ‘Darling’ (Eiza González) and the moderately incompetent JD (Lanny Joon) (who changed his neck tattoo of “HATE” to “HAT” since it improved his job prospects… LOL…. “everybody loves a hat”!).
Baby’s life gets more complicated when the hoods become aware of his fledgling relationship with fellow-orphan Debora (Lily James) a waitress in a diner and another lever to keep Baby locked into the job that he is just so, so good at.
On the surface this might be perceived as being just another good excuse for a lot of CGI-driven car stunts in the style of “The Fate of the Furious”. But no. Firstly, as Edgar Wright declared before the special screening I saw, all of the car stunts were actually performed for real on the mean streets of Atlanta (and hats off to the film’s stunt coordinator Robert Nagle and his team for these). And secondly, the car scenes are almost secondary to the fabulous story and character development in the film. The script (also by Edgar Wright) is just brilliant. There are genuinely laugh-out loud moments in the movie, with one of the highlights for me being JD tasked with procuring Michael Myers “Halloween” masks for a heist. If you don’t find this scene hilarious, you are not human – official.
The only misstep for me in the script was an unbelievable event (both in terms of likelihood and – particularly – timing) during a closing car park fight***.
Elgort is really strong in the lead role, and suggested to me that if the role of the young Han Solo in the upcoming Star Wars spin-off hadn’t already gone to Alden Ehrenreich, then here was a very strong contender. All of the supporting roles are strong (as you would expect from such a stellar cast) with Jon Hamm being a standout, appearing truly demonic in the closing scenes. The one role I was less sure about in the film was that of Lily James, whose performance as the ‘sweet as apple pie’ waitress seemed a little too “animated” for the big screen in the early scenes – I remember an acting class by Michael Caine where he advised that given the size of movie screens it’s often the case that “stillness is good”. What works well on the small screen (I am a big fan of her roles in historical TV dramas like “Downton Abbey” and the impeccable “War and Peace”) perhaps sometimes needs modifying for the wide-screen experience. I greatly warmed to her portrayal in the action sequences later on though: she’s a great actress and one that this film can hopefully now propel into the higher echelons in Hollywood.
Another star of the film is the fabulous soundtrack coordinated by Oscar-winner Steven Price (“Gravity“) featuring (amongst many other classics) Queen’s “Brighton Rock”, Golden Earring’s “Radar Love”, the Simon and Garfunkel classic (obviously) and Bob & Earl’s “Harlem Shuffle”, all used to brilliant effect. This latter track leads me on to some early Oscar predictions: if this film doesn’t get nominated this year for Oscars for Best Editing (Jonathan Amos and Paul Machliss, “Scott Pilgrim vs the World”) and Best Sound Editing (Julian Slater), then there is no God! The “Harlem Shuffle” coffee run sequence is a masterclass in editing and direction. Starting off with what I thought might turn into a tribute to “Saturday Night Fever”, the scene neatly takes on a style all of its own. It’s use of – erm – “subtitles” is just brilliant.
The often subtle, and occasionally not so subtle, edits between scenes are also truly masterful, making this moviegoer laugh-out-loud with delight periodically at the movie-making skill on display.
All of this is orchestrated by Edgar Wright as director who – for me – has been a little inconsistent over the years (loved, loved, loved “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”; “The World’s End” – not so much). Here, he delivers in spades and this film rockets immediately into my Films of the Year list for 2017. Awe inspiring.
Beg, steal, borrow, rob a bank – – do what you have to, but make sure you catch this film on the big screen.
There’s something inherently appealing about the concept of a getaway driver. A skillful ‘bad-boy’, but not normally bad enough to actually DO the nasty crime stuff…. merely be an active accomplice to it. As a result, it’s a subject that the movies have returned to time after time. I’m old and crusty enough to remember being wowed at seeing Ryan O’Neal in Walter Hill’s “Driver” on the big screen in 1978. And well before that, as a kid, my poor departed mother used to be driven crazy by me begging her to take me to see “The Italian Job” (the original 1969 version) YET again… probably the greatest getaway chase in movie history: I must have seen that film at least 20 times in the cinema. Of course more recently we’ve also had Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan in “Drive” on the same theme. Any I’ve forgotten?
But with Edgar Wright at the helm, a big name cast and an enticing trailer, I had high expectations for “Baby Driver” – and boy was I happy! This is such a seriously cool film on so many levels.
Opening with a bank heist followed by a kick-ass car chase, we follow ‘Baby’ (Ansel Elgort, “Allegiant”, “The Fault in our Stars”) as a tinnitus-suffering, music-infused getaway driver under the thumb of the criminal overlord Doc (Kevin Spacey, in icy Frank Underwood mode). Doc recruits an ever-changing mix-tape of villains for each job, including the psychopathic and appropriately named ‘Bats’ (Jamie Foxx, “Sleepless”), the chillingly dangerous Buddy (Jon Hamm, “Mad Men”, “Keeping Up With The Joneses”) and his “Bonnie-style” wife ‘Darling’ (Eiza González) and the moderately incompetent JD (Lanny Joon) (who changed his neck tattoo of “HATE” to “HAT” since it improved his job prospects… LOL…. “everybody loves a hat”!).
Baby’s life gets more complicated when the hoods become aware of his fledgling relationship with fellow-orphan Debora (Lily James) a waitress in a diner and another lever to keep Baby locked into the job that he is just so, so good at.
On the surface this might be perceived as being just another good excuse for a lot of CGI-driven car stunts in the style of “The Fate of the Furious”. But no. Firstly, as Edgar Wright declared before the special screening I saw, all of the car stunts were actually performed for real on the mean streets of Atlanta (and hats off to the film’s stunt coordinator Robert Nagle and his team for these). And secondly, the car scenes are almost secondary to the fabulous story and character development in the film. The script (also by Edgar Wright) is just brilliant. There are genuinely laugh-out loud moments in the movie, with one of the highlights for me being JD tasked with procuring Michael Myers “Halloween” masks for a heist. If you don’t find this scene hilarious, you are not human – official.
The only misstep for me in the script was an unbelievable event (both in terms of likelihood and – particularly – timing) during a closing car park fight***.
Elgort is really strong in the lead role, and suggested to me that if the role of the young Han Solo in the upcoming Star Wars spin-off hadn’t already gone to Alden Ehrenreich, then here was a very strong contender. All of the supporting roles are strong (as you would expect from such a stellar cast) with Jon Hamm being a standout, appearing truly demonic in the closing scenes. The one role I was less sure about in the film was that of Lily James, whose performance as the ‘sweet as apple pie’ waitress seemed a little too “animated” for the big screen in the early scenes – I remember an acting class by Michael Caine where he advised that given the size of movie screens it’s often the case that “stillness is good”. What works well on the small screen (I am a big fan of her roles in historical TV dramas like “Downton Abbey” and the impeccable “War and Peace”) perhaps sometimes needs modifying for the wide-screen experience. I greatly warmed to her portrayal in the action sequences later on though: she’s a great actress and one that this film can hopefully now propel into the higher echelons in Hollywood.
Another star of the film is the fabulous soundtrack coordinated by Oscar-winner Steven Price (“Gravity“) featuring (amongst many other classics) Queen’s “Brighton Rock”, Golden Earring’s “Radar Love”, the Simon and Garfunkel classic (obviously) and Bob & Earl’s “Harlem Shuffle”, all used to brilliant effect. This latter track leads me on to some early Oscar predictions: if this film doesn’t get nominated this year for Oscars for Best Editing (Jonathan Amos and Paul Machliss, “Scott Pilgrim vs the World”) and Best Sound Editing (Julian Slater), then there is no God! The “Harlem Shuffle” coffee run sequence is a masterclass in editing and direction. Starting off with what I thought might turn into a tribute to “Saturday Night Fever”, the scene neatly takes on a style all of its own. It’s use of – erm – “subtitles” is just brilliant.
The often subtle, and occasionally not so subtle, edits between scenes are also truly masterful, making this moviegoer laugh-out-loud with delight periodically at the movie-making skill on display.
All of this is orchestrated by Edgar Wright as director who – for me – has been a little inconsistent over the years (loved, loved, loved “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”; “The World’s End” – not so much). Here, he delivers in spades and this film rockets immediately into my Films of the Year list for 2017. Awe inspiring.
Beg, steal, borrow, rob a bank – – do what you have to, but make sure you catch this film on the big screen.