Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cinderella (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Sickly Sweet
Taking a look through Disney’s back catalogue of animation is like a lesson in film history. From Snow White to Bambi and The Lion King to The Princess & the Frog, there’s something in there for everyone to enjoy.
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 7, 2022
Originally set to release in December of 2019; the long-delayed cinematic retelling of Agatha Christie’s “Death on the Nile” has finally arrived in cinemas. The last cinematic version of the classic book arrived in 1978 and this time; Director and star Kenneth Branagh beings his version of Master Detective Hercule Poirot to Egypt after a chance encounter with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman) while on vacation; Poirot attends the wedding of wealthy socialite Linette Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and notices that she has married a man named Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer).
The wedding is a bit of a shock to many as just six weeks prior Doyle was engaged to Jacqueline de Bellefort (Emma Mackey), and Poirot observed the two of them in a London club and how Ridgeway was introduced to Simon by her friend Jacqueline.
The wedding reception is disrupted by the arrival of Jacqueline and Linette and Simon confides in Poirot that she has been following them around the world and asks the Detective to encourage her to leave them alone so they can get on with their life.
Jacqueline is highly disturbed and pleads her love for Simon and shows a gun which leads Poirot to encourage the newlyweds to abandon their overseas plans and go home. Simon and Linette press on and decide to take their wedding party on a cruise of the Nile in an attempt to get away from Jacqueline.
The plan seems to be working well until Jacqueline shows up as a ticketed passenger at a stop along the way. When a near-fatal accident occurs followed by a murder; Poirot must investigate the guests to find the killer. Naturally, there is plenty of motivation to go around, and as the deaths mount; Poirot must use his genius to find the killer.
The movie takes its time getting started but the CGI-enhanced scenery and the strong cast are very compelling and set the pieces in place very well. While I was able to solve the mystery about halfway into the film, some of the details around it were cleverly concealed and there were plenty of twists that had me consider other possible suspects.
Some may find the film a bit slow but that is the nature of a good mystery as time is given to developing the characters and their motives which adds to the suspense of the film.
In the end, the film is an engaging mystery that recalls the classic movie mysteries of old and it will be very interesting to see if audiences will embrace the film in the same way as they did with “Murder on the Orient Express” and audiences will get more Poirot adventures from Branagh in the near future.
4 stars out of 5.
The wedding is a bit of a shock to many as just six weeks prior Doyle was engaged to Jacqueline de Bellefort (Emma Mackey), and Poirot observed the two of them in a London club and how Ridgeway was introduced to Simon by her friend Jacqueline.
The wedding reception is disrupted by the arrival of Jacqueline and Linette and Simon confides in Poirot that she has been following them around the world and asks the Detective to encourage her to leave them alone so they can get on with their life.
Jacqueline is highly disturbed and pleads her love for Simon and shows a gun which leads Poirot to encourage the newlyweds to abandon their overseas plans and go home. Simon and Linette press on and decide to take their wedding party on a cruise of the Nile in an attempt to get away from Jacqueline.
The plan seems to be working well until Jacqueline shows up as a ticketed passenger at a stop along the way. When a near-fatal accident occurs followed by a murder; Poirot must investigate the guests to find the killer. Naturally, there is plenty of motivation to go around, and as the deaths mount; Poirot must use his genius to find the killer.
The movie takes its time getting started but the CGI-enhanced scenery and the strong cast are very compelling and set the pieces in place very well. While I was able to solve the mystery about halfway into the film, some of the details around it were cleverly concealed and there were plenty of twists that had me consider other possible suspects.
Some may find the film a bit slow but that is the nature of a good mystery as time is given to developing the characters and their motives which adds to the suspense of the film.
In the end, the film is an engaging mystery that recalls the classic movie mysteries of old and it will be very interesting to see if audiences will embrace the film in the same way as they did with “Murder on the Orient Express” and audiences will get more Poirot adventures from Branagh in the near future.
4 stars out of 5.
David McK (3180 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Apr 10, 2022
The second of Kenneth Branagh's outing as Agatha Christie's sleuth Poirot, apparently much delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic, and set after The Murder on the Orient Express.
I've never seen that movie.
I have read the book on which it (Murder on Orient Express) is based, though.
As I'm not that big a fan of murder mysteries, I hadn't, however, read the story on which this is based.
Why does that matter?
Simply because it meant I was going into this with no preconceptions; no real idea of what would happen (other than there would be a murder which Poirot has to solve)!
I'm not sure whether the rest of Agatha Christie's Poirot novels are all like this or not - I've only read Murder on Orient Express and Murder of Roger Ackroyd, but I did find heavy similarities between the plots, with both Orient Express and is film largely taking place in a confined location, where there is a limited pool of suspects and where Poirot has to sit down and methodically think his way through.
This movie takes a while to get going, with the first hour or so in particular - I found - dragging quite a bit. I've also heard that there was extensive use of Green screen throughout, which might also explain why some of the Nile scenes just didn't sit quite right.
On the other hand, there is a veritable list of who's who acting talent on the screen: aside from Branagh himself, we have Gal Gadot (as the key victim), Emma Mackey, Arnie Hammer, Russel Brand (surprisingly understated), Annette Benning, Dawn French, Jennifer Saunders (yes, that French and Saunders!), Letitia Wright and Sophie Okonedo - nearly all of whom would have their own motives for the murder.
I've never seen that movie.
I have read the book on which it (Murder on Orient Express) is based, though.
As I'm not that big a fan of murder mysteries, I hadn't, however, read the story on which this is based.
Why does that matter?
Simply because it meant I was going into this with no preconceptions; no real idea of what would happen (other than there would be a murder which Poirot has to solve)!
I'm not sure whether the rest of Agatha Christie's Poirot novels are all like this or not - I've only read Murder on Orient Express and Murder of Roger Ackroyd, but I did find heavy similarities between the plots, with both Orient Express and is film largely taking place in a confined location, where there is a limited pool of suspects and where Poirot has to sit down and methodically think his way through.
This movie takes a while to get going, with the first hour or so in particular - I found - dragging quite a bit. I've also heard that there was extensive use of Green screen throughout, which might also explain why some of the Nile scenes just didn't sit quite right.
On the other hand, there is a veritable list of who's who acting talent on the screen: aside from Branagh himself, we have Gal Gadot (as the key victim), Emma Mackey, Arnie Hammer, Russel Brand (surprisingly understated), Annette Benning, Dawn French, Jennifer Saunders (yes, that French and Saunders!), Letitia Wright and Sophie Okonedo - nearly all of whom would have their own motives for the murder.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
This is not your father’s Jack Ryan; but it should’ve been.
Chris Pine stars as the famed Jack Ryan in this reboot of the character. We open the movie with Ryan
attending school in London on the day many won’t soon forget: September 11, 2001. The events
this day push Ryan into enlisting in the Marines and we join him 3 years later where we see Ryan in
a helicopter with some brothers-in-arms. It doesn’t take long for the helo to be shot down, but not
without Ryan becoming a hero. After extensive rehab from a broken spine, Mr. Ryan is approached by
Thomas Harper (Kevin Costner) to join the CIA as an analyst.
This intro to the movie was short. But what lacks in length it makes up for in the eloquence in which
it delivers the back story for Jack Ryan, thus setting up a whole new franchise and getting new viewers
ready for the ride. After this intro, we flash forward 10 years later to find Ryan working on Wall Street,
but he’s undercover and is an analyst for the CIA. He is with his one-time physical therapist, Cathy
Muller (Keira Knightley), and he discovers the details of a planned economic attack against the USA.
It isn’t long before he is whisked away to Russia to do some wet work, and he bumbles into the life
of a field agent facing off against the mastermind of the villainy in the film, Viktor Cherevin (Kenneth
Branagh).
Some may find that the movie lacks the quick-paced, non-stop action that we have seen from spy
movies these days (including the famous 007), but it does keep a good pace and puts an intelligent story
line on the screen and actually entices the audience to think, all the while including some action for the
adrenaline-junkies.
Pine plays a very believable Jack Ryan. He portrays a character that is more closely linked to Tom
Clancy’s original stories and vision for the character than even Harrison Ford did in Patriot Games (which
I thought was an excellent movie). He nailed the bumbling analyst-turned-field-agent in such a way that
you’d believe it was really his personality. They explain his ability to handle himself with the military
background so expertly set up at the beginning of the movie. Adding Costner to the cast was a stroke
of genius as he plays the mentor/superior part extremely well, but he wasn’t in the film so much as
to distract from the focus of Ryan. Branagh (who also directed the film) played an excellent Russian
adversary to Ryan, who was nothing short of a genius in the way he delivered his character’s stoic
responses and reactions.
If I had to name one gripe with the movie, which believe me was no small feat, it was the Cathy
Muller character. Don’t get me wrong, the character was amazing and Knightley did an admirable job
portraying her. I just felt that she seemed to accept things that most people would question a little too
quickly, and without any reservation.
Other than that, the movie rocked. The action scenes were gripping and the actual story-line was
intelligent. The best thing is that story was plausible. It was not over the top or wildly impossible in the
real world. The scary part is just that. The plot of this movie could actually happen. I would definitely
recommend checking it out in theaters, and it most certainly made my “gotta buy it on bluray” list.
Chris Pine stars as the famed Jack Ryan in this reboot of the character. We open the movie with Ryan
attending school in London on the day many won’t soon forget: September 11, 2001. The events
this day push Ryan into enlisting in the Marines and we join him 3 years later where we see Ryan in
a helicopter with some brothers-in-arms. It doesn’t take long for the helo to be shot down, but not
without Ryan becoming a hero. After extensive rehab from a broken spine, Mr. Ryan is approached by
Thomas Harper (Kevin Costner) to join the CIA as an analyst.
This intro to the movie was short. But what lacks in length it makes up for in the eloquence in which
it delivers the back story for Jack Ryan, thus setting up a whole new franchise and getting new viewers
ready for the ride. After this intro, we flash forward 10 years later to find Ryan working on Wall Street,
but he’s undercover and is an analyst for the CIA. He is with his one-time physical therapist, Cathy
Muller (Keira Knightley), and he discovers the details of a planned economic attack against the USA.
It isn’t long before he is whisked away to Russia to do some wet work, and he bumbles into the life
of a field agent facing off against the mastermind of the villainy in the film, Viktor Cherevin (Kenneth
Branagh).
Some may find that the movie lacks the quick-paced, non-stop action that we have seen from spy
movies these days (including the famous 007), but it does keep a good pace and puts an intelligent story
line on the screen and actually entices the audience to think, all the while including some action for the
adrenaline-junkies.
Pine plays a very believable Jack Ryan. He portrays a character that is more closely linked to Tom
Clancy’s original stories and vision for the character than even Harrison Ford did in Patriot Games (which
I thought was an excellent movie). He nailed the bumbling analyst-turned-field-agent in such a way that
you’d believe it was really his personality. They explain his ability to handle himself with the military
background so expertly set up at the beginning of the movie. Adding Costner to the cast was a stroke
of genius as he plays the mentor/superior part extremely well, but he wasn’t in the film so much as
to distract from the focus of Ryan. Branagh (who also directed the film) played an excellent Russian
adversary to Ryan, who was nothing short of a genius in the way he delivered his character’s stoic
responses and reactions.
If I had to name one gripe with the movie, which believe me was no small feat, it was the Cathy
Muller character. Don’t get me wrong, the character was amazing and Knightley did an admirable job
portraying her. I just felt that she seemed to accept things that most people would question a little too
quickly, and without any reservation.
Other than that, the movie rocked. The action scenes were gripping and the actual story-line was
intelligent. The best thing is that story was plausible. It was not over the top or wildly impossible in the
real world. The scary part is just that. The plot of this movie could actually happen. I would definitely
recommend checking it out in theaters, and it most certainly made my “gotta buy it on bluray” list.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Cinderella (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Throw together two beautiful faces from a couple of popular TV shows, award-winning veterans of the big screen, a director who loves to immerse viewers in story in the most spectacular of ways and what do you get? Sweet, magical enchantment.
Cinderella is Disney’s latest live-action translation of a classic animated film and under Kenneth Branagh’s deft direction it is simply wonderful. Retelling a beloved fairytale and making it feel fresh, delightful and satisfying is no small feat but Branagh does it with engaging actors, charming sets, captivating scenery and gorgeous costumes.
Lily James, recently of Downton Abbey, plays the heroine with sweet, innocent strength. Showered with love by her parents, played by Ben Chaplin and Hayley Atwell, Ella knows nothing about discontent or malice. Even after she loses her mother, and even after her father brings home an uncaring stepmother and disdainful stepsisters, Ella remains faithful to her mother’s dying wish for her daughter to “Have courage. Be Kind.”
Everyone knows how Ella became Cinderella and we all know just how badly she’s treated by her stepmother and stepsisters. Cate Blanchett is wickedly magnificent as the stepmother and Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger bring new meaning to gaudy and garish.
I have to admit I’m a sucker for any fairytale that involves grand, sweeping ballroom scenes like Beauty and the Beast, Enchanted and now Cinderella. Of course, the scene could not have been possible without the help of a Fairy Godmother. Helena Bonham Carter is simply delightful in her role as Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother. The special effects used to give Cinderella a stunning gown as well as a horse-drawn carriage and driver and footmen were flawless
We also know how the story ends, but that didn’t stop the audience from sighing, holding its collective breath, and cheering when the prince, played handsomely by Richard Madden, finds the maiden whose foot fits perfectly in the glass slipper.
Days after our screener, my husband and I were still discussing the movie, that’s how much we enjoyed it. And when you can get your husband to easily agree to watch it again when it’s released, you know it’s a great movie.
Cinderella is Disney’s latest live-action translation of a classic animated film and under Kenneth Branagh’s deft direction it is simply wonderful. Retelling a beloved fairytale and making it feel fresh, delightful and satisfying is no small feat but Branagh does it with engaging actors, charming sets, captivating scenery and gorgeous costumes.
Lily James, recently of Downton Abbey, plays the heroine with sweet, innocent strength. Showered with love by her parents, played by Ben Chaplin and Hayley Atwell, Ella knows nothing about discontent or malice. Even after she loses her mother, and even after her father brings home an uncaring stepmother and disdainful stepsisters, Ella remains faithful to her mother’s dying wish for her daughter to “Have courage. Be Kind.”
Everyone knows how Ella became Cinderella and we all know just how badly she’s treated by her stepmother and stepsisters. Cate Blanchett is wickedly magnificent as the stepmother and Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger bring new meaning to gaudy and garish.
I have to admit I’m a sucker for any fairytale that involves grand, sweeping ballroom scenes like Beauty and the Beast, Enchanted and now Cinderella. Of course, the scene could not have been possible without the help of a Fairy Godmother. Helena Bonham Carter is simply delightful in her role as Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother. The special effects used to give Cinderella a stunning gown as well as a horse-drawn carriage and driver and footmen were flawless
We also know how the story ends, but that didn’t stop the audience from sighing, holding its collective breath, and cheering when the prince, played handsomely by Richard Madden, finds the maiden whose foot fits perfectly in the glass slipper.
Days after our screener, my husband and I were still discussing the movie, that’s how much we enjoyed it. And when you can get your husband to easily agree to watch it again when it’s released, you know it’s a great movie.
Tyler Fletcher (8 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 14, 2020
Character development (1 more)
Forgettable story
Another Live-Action Disney Adaption Bomb
Contains spoilers, click to show
What is it about fantasy novels that makes them so difficult to translate effectively to the silver screen? It’s not impossible – J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series and Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings adaptations are proof that it can be done. More often than not, however, the result is as limp and truncated as Kenneth Branagh’s Artemis Fowl – a few standout moments set adrift in a sea of underdeveloped characters, incomplete backstory elements, and abbreviated world building. Although the problem lies primarily in the difficulties associated with condensing an epic tale into a short-ish movie, the lack of elegance with which that is accomplished makes Artemis Fowl a failure for anyone hoping for the next great fantasy film.
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Jul 21, 2020
The first Thor film gets a bad wrap, and I think it's due to a combination of people forgetting just how good it is, and it perhaps being tarnished by it's underwhelming sequel, when in reality, Thor marks Marvel Studios first steps into more cosmic territory, a realm that was once deemed a little too silly for the general public, and pulls it off in style.
Firstly, translating the many characters of the Thor comic series is no easy feat. They all talk in a Shakespearean dialect, and have ridiculous costumes. The script though is fantastic. The Asgardian characters are still very bombastic, but when mixed with humans from Earth, it's becomes naturally comical. It doesn't feel corny, and somehow, it works very well.
As for the costumes, everyone just looks badass truth be told so hats off to the costume department.
Chris Hemsworth is the embodiment of Thor, and it's truly difficult to see anyone else in the role. He's charming, funny, and has just the right amount of god-like angst, and it's easy to see why he's become a firm favourite as the MCU has continued to expand.
The same goes for Tom Hiddleston as Loki. His portrayal of the God of Mischief is equal parts sinister, slimy, and sympathetic. He's the villain that you can't help but love and it's a testament to his performance that Loki has remained a mainstay in the MCU, a franchise that is often guilty of the one-and-done method when it comes to villains.
The cast is rounded out by a stellar lineup, including Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Jaime Alexander, Stellan Skaragård, Idris Elba and even includes a bigger role for the always excellent Clark Gregg. This film also serves as the introduction of Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, another MCU staple. It's a strong cast list without a doubt.
The action set pieces are all pretty fun, and the effects still just about hold up. I'd argue that Thor looks better than the first two Iron Man films in that respect. Asgard looks great as well.
Another thing I absolutely LOVE about Thor is the music score by Patrick Doyle. In terms of original orchestral music, it's probably by favourite within the MCU (possibly on par with Infinity War and Endgame) but it's fantastic, and gives me goosebumps every damn time I watch this movie
Thor is action packed, with a fantastic script and score, and a great cast with well fleshed out characters. Bringing Kenneth Branagh on board as director was a great choice, and overall, the film deserves way more love than it gets.
Ignoring the first Avengers movie, Thor is the crown jewel of phase one!
Firstly, translating the many characters of the Thor comic series is no easy feat. They all talk in a Shakespearean dialect, and have ridiculous costumes. The script though is fantastic. The Asgardian characters are still very bombastic, but when mixed with humans from Earth, it's becomes naturally comical. It doesn't feel corny, and somehow, it works very well.
As for the costumes, everyone just looks badass truth be told so hats off to the costume department.
Chris Hemsworth is the embodiment of Thor, and it's truly difficult to see anyone else in the role. He's charming, funny, and has just the right amount of god-like angst, and it's easy to see why he's become a firm favourite as the MCU has continued to expand.
The same goes for Tom Hiddleston as Loki. His portrayal of the God of Mischief is equal parts sinister, slimy, and sympathetic. He's the villain that you can't help but love and it's a testament to his performance that Loki has remained a mainstay in the MCU, a franchise that is often guilty of the one-and-done method when it comes to villains.
The cast is rounded out by a stellar lineup, including Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Jaime Alexander, Stellan Skaragård, Idris Elba and even includes a bigger role for the always excellent Clark Gregg. This film also serves as the introduction of Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, another MCU staple. It's a strong cast list without a doubt.
The action set pieces are all pretty fun, and the effects still just about hold up. I'd argue that Thor looks better than the first two Iron Man films in that respect. Asgard looks great as well.
Another thing I absolutely LOVE about Thor is the music score by Patrick Doyle. In terms of original orchestral music, it's probably by favourite within the MCU (possibly on par with Infinity War and Endgame) but it's fantastic, and gives me goosebumps every damn time I watch this movie
Thor is action packed, with a fantastic script and score, and a great cast with well fleshed out characters. Bringing Kenneth Branagh on board as director was a great choice, and overall, the film deserves way more love than it gets.
Ignoring the first Avengers movie, Thor is the crown jewel of phase one!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Aug 28, 2020
Spectacular action set pieces done "in camera" (1 more)
Branagh and Debecki, both superb
Sound mix makes dialogue unintelligible (1 more)
In the words of Huey Lewis, "You're too darn loud"
Only Nolan and Schrödinger’s cat knows what’s going on.
Tenet is the long awaited new movie from Christopher Nolan. The movie that's set to reboot the multiplexes post-Covid. It's a manic, extremely loud, extremely baffling sci-fi cum spy rollercoaster that will please a lot of Nolan fan-boys but which left me with very mixed views.
How to write a spoiler-free plot summary? John David Washington (Denzel's lad) plays "The Protagonist" - a crack-CIA field operative who is an unstoppable one-man army in the style of Hobbs or Shaw. Recruited into an even more shadowy organisation, he's on the trail of an international arms dealer, Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh in full villain mode). Sator is bullying his estranged wife Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) over custody of their son (and the film unusually has a BBFC warning about "Domestic Abuse"). Our hero jets the world to try to prevent a very particular kind of Armageddon while also keeping the vulnerable and attractive Kat alive.
This is cinema at its biggest and boldest. Nolan has taken a cinema 'splurge' gun, filled it with money, set it on rapid fire, removed the safety and let rip at the screen. Given that Nolan is famous for doing all of his 'effects' for real and 'in camera', some of what you see performed is almost unbelievable. You thought crashing a train through rush-hour traffic in "Inception" was crazy? You ain't seen nothing yet with the airport scene! And for lovers of Chinooks (I must admit I am one and rush out of the house to see one if I hear it coming!) there is positively Chinook-p*rn on offer in the film's ridiculously huge finale.
The 'inversion' aspects of the story also lends itself to some fight scenes - one in particular in an airport 'freeport' - which are both bizarre to watch and, I imagine, technically extremely challenging to pull off. In this regard John David Washington is an acrobatic and talented stunt performer in his own right, and must have trained for months for this role.
Nolan's crew also certainly racked up their air miles pre-lockdown, since the locations range far and wide across the world. The locations encompassed Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and United States. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is lush in introducing these, especially the beautiful Italian coast scenes. Although I did miss the David Arnold strings that would typically introduce these in a Bond movie: it felt like that was missing.
The 'timey-wimey' aspects of the plot are also intriguing and very cleverly done. There are numerous points at which you think "Oh, that's a sloppy continuity error" or "Shame the production design team missed that cracked wing mirror". Then later in the movie, you get at least a dozen "Aha!" moments. Some of them (no spoilers) are jaw-droppingly spectacular.
Perhaps the best twist is hidden in the final line of the movie. I only processed it on the way home.
And so to the first of my significant gripes with Tenet. The sound mix in the movie is all over the place. I'd go stronger than that... it's truly awful (expletive deleted)! Nolan often implements Shakespeare's trick of having characters in the play provide exposition of the plot to aid comprehension. But unfortunately, all of this exposition dialogue was largely incomprehensible. This was due to:
- the ear-splitting volume of the sound: 2020 movie audiences are going to be suffering from 'Tenetis'! (that joke © David Moody, 2020);
- the dialogue is poorly mixed with the thumping music by Ludwig Göransson (Wot? No Hans Zimmer?);
- a large proportion of the dialogue was through masks of varying description (#covid-appropriate). Aaron Taylor-Johnson was particularly unintelligible to my ears.
Overall, watching this with subtitles at a special showing might be advisable!
OK, so I only have a PhD in Physics... but at times I was completely lost as to the intricacies of the plot. It made "Inception" look like "The Tiger Who Came to Tea". There was an obvious 'McGuffin' in "Inception" - - ("These 'dream levels'... how exactly are they architected??".... "Don't worry... they'll never notice". And we didn't!) In "Tenet" there are McGuffins nested in McGuffins. So much of this is casually waved away as "future stuff... you're not qualified" that it feels vaguely condescending to the audience. At one point Kat says "I don't understand what's going on" - darn right luv.
There are also gaps in the storyline that jar. The word "Tenet"? What does it mean. Is it just a password? I'm none the wiser.
The manic pace of Tenet and the constant din means that the movie gallops along like a series of disconnected (albeit brilliant) action set pieces. For me, it has none of the emotional heart of the Cobb's marriage problems from "Inception" or the father/daughter separation of "Interstellar". In fact, you barely care for anyone in the movie, perhaps with the exception of Kat.
It's a talented cast. As mentioned above, John David Washington is muscular and athletic in the role. It's a big load for the actor to carry in such a tent-pole movie, given his only significant starring role before was in the excellent BlacKkKlansman. But he carries it off well. A worthy successor to Gerard Butler and Jason Statham for action roles in the next 10 years.
This is also a great performance by Robert Pattinson, in his most high-profile film in a long time, playing the vaguely alcoholic and Carré-esque support guy. Pattinson's Potter co-star Clemence Poésy also pops up - rather more un-glam that usual - as the scientist plot-expositor early in the movie.
Nolan's regular Michael Caine also pops up. although the 87-year old legend is starting to show his age: His speech was obviously affected at the time of filming (though nice try Mr Nolan in trying to disguise that with a mouth full of food!). But in my book, any amount of Caine in a movie is a plus. He also gets to deliver the best killer line in the film about snobbery!
However, it's Kenneth Branagh and Elizabeth Debicki that really stand out. They were both fabulous, especially when they were bouncing off each other in their marital battle royale.
So, given this was my most anticipated movie of the year, it's a bit of a curate's egg for me. A mixture of being awe-struck at times and slightly disappointed at others. It's a movie which needs a second watch, so I'm heading back today to give my ear drums another bashing! And this is one where I reserve the right to revisit my rating after that second watch... it's not likely to go down... but it might go up.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/28/tenet-only-nolan-and-schrodingers-cat-knows-whats-going-on/ .)
How to write a spoiler-free plot summary? John David Washington (Denzel's lad) plays "The Protagonist" - a crack-CIA field operative who is an unstoppable one-man army in the style of Hobbs or Shaw. Recruited into an even more shadowy organisation, he's on the trail of an international arms dealer, Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh in full villain mode). Sator is bullying his estranged wife Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) over custody of their son (and the film unusually has a BBFC warning about "Domestic Abuse"). Our hero jets the world to try to prevent a very particular kind of Armageddon while also keeping the vulnerable and attractive Kat alive.
This is cinema at its biggest and boldest. Nolan has taken a cinema 'splurge' gun, filled it with money, set it on rapid fire, removed the safety and let rip at the screen. Given that Nolan is famous for doing all of his 'effects' for real and 'in camera', some of what you see performed is almost unbelievable. You thought crashing a train through rush-hour traffic in "Inception" was crazy? You ain't seen nothing yet with the airport scene! And for lovers of Chinooks (I must admit I am one and rush out of the house to see one if I hear it coming!) there is positively Chinook-p*rn on offer in the film's ridiculously huge finale.
The 'inversion' aspects of the story also lends itself to some fight scenes - one in particular in an airport 'freeport' - which are both bizarre to watch and, I imagine, technically extremely challenging to pull off. In this regard John David Washington is an acrobatic and talented stunt performer in his own right, and must have trained for months for this role.
Nolan's crew also certainly racked up their air miles pre-lockdown, since the locations range far and wide across the world. The locations encompassed Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and United States. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is lush in introducing these, especially the beautiful Italian coast scenes. Although I did miss the David Arnold strings that would typically introduce these in a Bond movie: it felt like that was missing.
The 'timey-wimey' aspects of the plot are also intriguing and very cleverly done. There are numerous points at which you think "Oh, that's a sloppy continuity error" or "Shame the production design team missed that cracked wing mirror". Then later in the movie, you get at least a dozen "Aha!" moments. Some of them (no spoilers) are jaw-droppingly spectacular.
Perhaps the best twist is hidden in the final line of the movie. I only processed it on the way home.
And so to the first of my significant gripes with Tenet. The sound mix in the movie is all over the place. I'd go stronger than that... it's truly awful (expletive deleted)! Nolan often implements Shakespeare's trick of having characters in the play provide exposition of the plot to aid comprehension. But unfortunately, all of this exposition dialogue was largely incomprehensible. This was due to:
- the ear-splitting volume of the sound: 2020 movie audiences are going to be suffering from 'Tenetis'! (that joke © David Moody, 2020);
- the dialogue is poorly mixed with the thumping music by Ludwig Göransson (Wot? No Hans Zimmer?);
- a large proportion of the dialogue was through masks of varying description (#covid-appropriate). Aaron Taylor-Johnson was particularly unintelligible to my ears.
Overall, watching this with subtitles at a special showing might be advisable!
OK, so I only have a PhD in Physics... but at times I was completely lost as to the intricacies of the plot. It made "Inception" look like "The Tiger Who Came to Tea". There was an obvious 'McGuffin' in "Inception" - - ("These 'dream levels'... how exactly are they architected??".... "Don't worry... they'll never notice". And we didn't!) In "Tenet" there are McGuffins nested in McGuffins. So much of this is casually waved away as "future stuff... you're not qualified" that it feels vaguely condescending to the audience. At one point Kat says "I don't understand what's going on" - darn right luv.
There are also gaps in the storyline that jar. The word "Tenet"? What does it mean. Is it just a password? I'm none the wiser.
The manic pace of Tenet and the constant din means that the movie gallops along like a series of disconnected (albeit brilliant) action set pieces. For me, it has none of the emotional heart of the Cobb's marriage problems from "Inception" or the father/daughter separation of "Interstellar". In fact, you barely care for anyone in the movie, perhaps with the exception of Kat.
It's a talented cast. As mentioned above, John David Washington is muscular and athletic in the role. It's a big load for the actor to carry in such a tent-pole movie, given his only significant starring role before was in the excellent BlacKkKlansman. But he carries it off well. A worthy successor to Gerard Butler and Jason Statham for action roles in the next 10 years.
This is also a great performance by Robert Pattinson, in his most high-profile film in a long time, playing the vaguely alcoholic and Carré-esque support guy. Pattinson's Potter co-star Clemence Poésy also pops up - rather more un-glam that usual - as the scientist plot-expositor early in the movie.
Nolan's regular Michael Caine also pops up. although the 87-year old legend is starting to show his age: His speech was obviously affected at the time of filming (though nice try Mr Nolan in trying to disguise that with a mouth full of food!). But in my book, any amount of Caine in a movie is a plus. He also gets to deliver the best killer line in the film about snobbery!
However, it's Kenneth Branagh and Elizabeth Debicki that really stand out. They were both fabulous, especially when they were bouncing off each other in their marital battle royale.
So, given this was my most anticipated movie of the year, it's a bit of a curate's egg for me. A mixture of being awe-struck at times and slightly disappointed at others. It's a movie which needs a second watch, so I'm heading back today to give my ear drums another bashing! And this is one where I reserve the right to revisit my rating after that second watch... it's not likely to go down... but it might go up.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/28/tenet-only-nolan-and-schrodingers-cat-knows-whats-going-on/ .)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated All Is True (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I have reservations about anything that Kenneth Branagh is in on the big screen. I'm sorry but I'm going to say it... he needs to stop. Stay behind the camera or on stage. I'm already pre-disappointed for Death On The Nile.
Regardless of that feeling I was excited to see Judy Dench and Ian McKellen in action, it was also a nice surprise to see Ben Elton's name on it... I'm not sure how that had escaped my notice.
Even with those redeeming features I was left bored? Disappointed? No, definitely bored.
I know lots of different snippets about Shakespeare. Whether they're true or not always seems to be up for debate but there are plenty of facts out there. One of the things I had never heard before was this film's addition of the Shakespeare/Wriothesley friendship. By this point I was already feeling disengaged so adding it in pushed me even closer to the edge. I was actually annoyed to be presented with something completely unknown. I know that's mad.
The story as a whole wasn't going to be action-packed and therefore a little slower paced, but everything we were presented with didn't seem connected to anything else. One of the notes I made just said "nothing seems to have a real purpose" and I don't think that opinion changed by the time the film ended. I didn't understand the ultimate point of this film, I know it's about the end of his life and yet... *quizzical shrug*.
You say Ben Elton and you think Blackadder and The Thin Blue Line, at least I do. He's built for comedy and in this there just isn't any and it shows. Everything feels bland and is punctuated with silences that bring the awkwardness of the characters right out into the audience. Unfortunately a real awkwardness and not an "I identify with this character" one.
As for the star-studded cast, I enjoyed Judi Dench's performance the most but even that can't bring up the score on this for me. McKellen gave a fantastic performance but it didn't feel like it belonged in this film, it felt like he was acting in a Shakespeare play and not in a film about Shakespeare.
Had you taken Dench and McKellen out there would have been very little in this film to stop it from sliding into obscurity.
What you should do
I can't recommend this one, I wouldn't even bother when it appears on TV. It does have its audience somewhere though, as I and several other people heaved a sigh of relief when it ended the little old lady across the aisle exclaimed "ooooh weren't that lovely!"
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like to take home the two hours of my life I spent on this film, if that's possible?
Regardless of that feeling I was excited to see Judy Dench and Ian McKellen in action, it was also a nice surprise to see Ben Elton's name on it... I'm not sure how that had escaped my notice.
Even with those redeeming features I was left bored? Disappointed? No, definitely bored.
I know lots of different snippets about Shakespeare. Whether they're true or not always seems to be up for debate but there are plenty of facts out there. One of the things I had never heard before was this film's addition of the Shakespeare/Wriothesley friendship. By this point I was already feeling disengaged so adding it in pushed me even closer to the edge. I was actually annoyed to be presented with something completely unknown. I know that's mad.
The story as a whole wasn't going to be action-packed and therefore a little slower paced, but everything we were presented with didn't seem connected to anything else. One of the notes I made just said "nothing seems to have a real purpose" and I don't think that opinion changed by the time the film ended. I didn't understand the ultimate point of this film, I know it's about the end of his life and yet... *quizzical shrug*.
You say Ben Elton and you think Blackadder and The Thin Blue Line, at least I do. He's built for comedy and in this there just isn't any and it shows. Everything feels bland and is punctuated with silences that bring the awkwardness of the characters right out into the audience. Unfortunately a real awkwardness and not an "I identify with this character" one.
As for the star-studded cast, I enjoyed Judi Dench's performance the most but even that can't bring up the score on this for me. McKellen gave a fantastic performance but it didn't feel like it belonged in this film, it felt like he was acting in a Shakespeare play and not in a film about Shakespeare.
Had you taken Dench and McKellen out there would have been very little in this film to stop it from sliding into obscurity.
What you should do
I can't recommend this one, I wouldn't even bother when it appears on TV. It does have its audience somewhere though, as I and several other people heaved a sigh of relief when it ended the little old lady across the aisle exclaimed "ooooh weren't that lovely!"
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would like to take home the two hours of my life I spent on this film, if that's possible?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022
I don't like to go into a film with a negative impression... but... #NotMyPoirot #SlashTheStash.
Linnet Ridgeway goes to Poirot with fears for her safety, and that of her new husband, when an old mutual acquaintance shows up at each new location on their honeymoon.
An Agatha Christie novel always makes for a great plot, and this one has had several different adaptations over the years. Don't go into it expecting a faithful adaptation though, this one comes out a bit spicier. It also takes some liberties with Poirot's backstory, which does add some interesting context to things about him, but at the same time, it's not the source material.
As with Death Train, Death Boat has a star-studded cast. While I love most of them in other things, I found the whole dynamic to be a little all over the place. Tom Bateman and Ali Fazal were solid, Russell Brand was surprisingly good, but everyone else was either rather bland or too over the top. Then there's Kenneth... I'll give it to them, it feels wrong thinking that Poirot is sexy... but there's one moment where even I, a Ken denier, took a sharp intake of breath.
Death on the Nile comes in at 2 hours and 7 minutes, had they cut what felt like 10 minutes of Gal Gadot walking down the length of the ship, it could easily have come in under 2 hours.
I think that identifies the issue I have with these new adaptations. This one in particular has a very theatrical feel to it. A lot of the boat shots early on feel like you're watching it happen on a stage. I don't object to that style, I like watching theatre, but having it thrown in randomly threw me.
My other big gripe was the choice of shots. Death Boat really likes to not show you faces when people are talking. Watching these scenes was off-putting, it felt like they'd been re-edited and had a new audio track overlaid... badly. There's also a scene where the camera swoops backwards and forwards between the people who are talking, and after a while, I could feel the motion sickness building.
It isn't until films like this come out that you realise just how much of one is computer generated. I have to assume that the majority of this budget went on the cast, it certainly wasn't spent on the effects. The de-aging on Branagh in the opening was awful, and must have cost more than hiring a younger actor to do those scenes. The generated scenery wasn't any better, it was painfully obvious which weren't real.
Death on the Nile is, at the end of the day, another classic Christie story, and even with some butchering, there's still a great mystery to unfold. That being said, I would rather sit through one of the other adaptations again if they were all laid out in front of me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/death-on-nile-movie-review.html
Linnet Ridgeway goes to Poirot with fears for her safety, and that of her new husband, when an old mutual acquaintance shows up at each new location on their honeymoon.
An Agatha Christie novel always makes for a great plot, and this one has had several different adaptations over the years. Don't go into it expecting a faithful adaptation though, this one comes out a bit spicier. It also takes some liberties with Poirot's backstory, which does add some interesting context to things about him, but at the same time, it's not the source material.
As with Death Train, Death Boat has a star-studded cast. While I love most of them in other things, I found the whole dynamic to be a little all over the place. Tom Bateman and Ali Fazal were solid, Russell Brand was surprisingly good, but everyone else was either rather bland or too over the top. Then there's Kenneth... I'll give it to them, it feels wrong thinking that Poirot is sexy... but there's one moment where even I, a Ken denier, took a sharp intake of breath.
Death on the Nile comes in at 2 hours and 7 minutes, had they cut what felt like 10 minutes of Gal Gadot walking down the length of the ship, it could easily have come in under 2 hours.
I think that identifies the issue I have with these new adaptations. This one in particular has a very theatrical feel to it. A lot of the boat shots early on feel like you're watching it happen on a stage. I don't object to that style, I like watching theatre, but having it thrown in randomly threw me.
My other big gripe was the choice of shots. Death Boat really likes to not show you faces when people are talking. Watching these scenes was off-putting, it felt like they'd been re-edited and had a new audio track overlaid... badly. There's also a scene where the camera swoops backwards and forwards between the people who are talking, and after a while, I could feel the motion sickness building.
It isn't until films like this come out that you realise just how much of one is computer generated. I have to assume that the majority of this budget went on the cast, it certainly wasn't spent on the effects. The de-aging on Branagh in the opening was awful, and must have cost more than hiring a younger actor to do those scenes. The generated scenery wasn't any better, it was painfully obvious which weren't real.
Death on the Nile is, at the end of the day, another classic Christie story, and even with some butchering, there's still a great mystery to unfold. That being said, I would rather sit through one of the other adaptations again if they were all laid out in front of me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/death-on-nile-movie-review.html