Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zoolander 2 (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Fashion Faux pas
It pains me to say it, but Ben Stiller hasn’t really been relevant for quite some time. His last film, the final movie in the Night at the Museum franchise struggled with critics and audiences alike.
Once dubbed part of the so-called “Fratpack”, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design – and that’s not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour – something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrell’s villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrel’s comic timing is as usual, on point, but it’s unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
Once dubbed part of the so-called “Fratpack”, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design – and that’s not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour – something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrell’s villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrel’s comic timing is as usual, on point, but it’s unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Martian (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Ridley Scott's best film since Alien
It’s safe to say that Ridley Scott knows his way around a camera. From Alien to Gladiator, the director has brought to the silver screen some of the greatest films of all time, heck even Prometheus wasn’t that bad in a muddled kind of way.
Now, after the underwhelming Exodus: Gods & Kings, Scott returns to the director’s chair doing what he does best, sci-fi. But is The Martian as good as his earlier works?
Thankfully, the answer is yes and The Martian proves how good the director can be when he’s given the right material to work with. Andy Weir’s 2011 novel of the same name lends a good starting point and Scott ends up with his best film since 1979’s masterpiece, Alien – that’s no joke.
Matt Damon stars as Mark Wateny, an astronaut and botanist left stranded on Mars after a mission goes horribly wrong. After being left behind by his colleagues, played by talent including Jessica Chastain (The Hurt Locker) and Kate Mara (Fantastic Four), Mark must find a way to survive on the red planet until a rescue operation can reach him – years later.
Sean Bean, Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover and Jeff Daniels also star as NASA directors, scientists and astrophysicists. Despite their limited screen time, each brings something to the table with a spirited performance.
Scott directs The Martian with a huge amount of confidence, clearly helped by his time on Alien and Prometheus, and his cinematography is absolute perfection. Never has Mars looked this good on film. The desolate, arid landscape is breath-taking and the numerous aerial shots that feature Damon’s character only add to the emptiness.
The special effects too are wonderful. CGI is mixed with amazing practical props that integrate so well together that it’s impossible to tell the difference. The numerous spacecraft, living quarters and vehicles all feel so real and continue to add more credibility to The Martian’s cause.
Damon is also second-to-none and over the course of the film develops new personality traits, all due to the intense stress of being stranded 50 million miles away from Earth. The film lives and dies on his efforts and thankfully, the ever-reliable actor gives one of his best performances in years.
Unfortunately, Jessica Chastain doesn’t have too much to do until the finale and feels a little side-lined – she has won an Oscar after all, though Damon’s magnetic presence is enough to forgive some of the shortcomings in other characters.
The script is, on the whole, very good indeed. Despite only featuring one character for the majority of its 140 minute run-time, The Martian is funny, witty and helped by a fantastic disco soundtrack that has hits from the likes of ABBA dotted about.
Overall, The Martian is sci-fi film-making at its peak. Ridley Scott has crafted a beautiful looking and deeply involving film that features the very best in special effects and scientific accuracy. With Matt Damon’s dry humour and emotional depth, it’s a winner all round.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/04/ridley-scotts-best-film-since-alien-the-martian-review/
Now, after the underwhelming Exodus: Gods & Kings, Scott returns to the director’s chair doing what he does best, sci-fi. But is The Martian as good as his earlier works?
Thankfully, the answer is yes and The Martian proves how good the director can be when he’s given the right material to work with. Andy Weir’s 2011 novel of the same name lends a good starting point and Scott ends up with his best film since 1979’s masterpiece, Alien – that’s no joke.
Matt Damon stars as Mark Wateny, an astronaut and botanist left stranded on Mars after a mission goes horribly wrong. After being left behind by his colleagues, played by talent including Jessica Chastain (The Hurt Locker) and Kate Mara (Fantastic Four), Mark must find a way to survive on the red planet until a rescue operation can reach him – years later.
Sean Bean, Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover and Jeff Daniels also star as NASA directors, scientists and astrophysicists. Despite their limited screen time, each brings something to the table with a spirited performance.
Scott directs The Martian with a huge amount of confidence, clearly helped by his time on Alien and Prometheus, and his cinematography is absolute perfection. Never has Mars looked this good on film. The desolate, arid landscape is breath-taking and the numerous aerial shots that feature Damon’s character only add to the emptiness.
The special effects too are wonderful. CGI is mixed with amazing practical props that integrate so well together that it’s impossible to tell the difference. The numerous spacecraft, living quarters and vehicles all feel so real and continue to add more credibility to The Martian’s cause.
Damon is also second-to-none and over the course of the film develops new personality traits, all due to the intense stress of being stranded 50 million miles away from Earth. The film lives and dies on his efforts and thankfully, the ever-reliable actor gives one of his best performances in years.
Unfortunately, Jessica Chastain doesn’t have too much to do until the finale and feels a little side-lined – she has won an Oscar after all, though Damon’s magnetic presence is enough to forgive some of the shortcomings in other characters.
The script is, on the whole, very good indeed. Despite only featuring one character for the majority of its 140 minute run-time, The Martian is funny, witty and helped by a fantastic disco soundtrack that has hits from the likes of ABBA dotted about.
Overall, The Martian is sci-fi film-making at its peak. Ridley Scott has crafted a beautiful looking and deeply involving film that features the very best in special effects and scientific accuracy. With Matt Damon’s dry humour and emotional depth, it’s a winner all round.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/04/ridley-scotts-best-film-since-alien-the-martian-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tiny People, Big Mess.
From the trailer this film looked quirky, funny and interesting and has been on my “looking forward to” list for many months. Oh dear, what a let down.
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Universal Pictures is wrapping up its How To Train Your Dragon Trilogy with the release of the film: How To Train Your Dragon: Hidden World, set to release on Friday, February 22, 2019.
The film brings back the same core cast of characters as the previous two movies, with Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), Astrid, (America Ferrera), Valka (Cate Blanchet), Eret (Kit Harrington), Gobber (Craig Ferguson), Snotlout (Jonah Hill), Ruffnutt (Kristen Wiig), Tuffnut (TJ Miller), Fishlegs (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), and flashback appearances of Stoic (Gerard Butler).
The story opens on what is supposed to be a “stealthy raid” but isn’t, quite.
We learn that Hiccup and his band of friends (both Dragon and human) are on a continuous mission to rescue captured Dragons from the poachers determined to capture and exploit them.
Hiccup and his friends then bring the rescued dragons back to Berk which is now a “Dragon-Viking utopia”. This arrangement, however idyllic, does not appear to be sustainable in the long-term. It is crowded and messy and Berk is just simply running out of room to house any more Dragons! Astrid and Gobber are concerned that housing all the Dragons on Berk makes the settlement a target for the Dragon hunters, endangering the entire community.
Hiccup is still exploring and reading his father’s old records, and remains convinced that there is “more” out there. He enlists Astrid’s help in finding the hidden world where he believes that all of Berk could move to, with their Dragons to leave in peace and secrecy.
After an attack on Berk, the rest of the community is convinced that Hiccup is right (even as he is not fully convinced himself of his ability to lead them successfully) and agrees to follow him in his search for the Hidden World sanctuary.
The story follows them on their quest and the dangers and successes of the journey to find a new, more suitable home.
The music, animation, and scenery in this movie is great. The details are phenomenal, from the characters’ hair, to the movements of the Dragons, to the Hidden World cave details, really show the attention that was paid in making this movie stand out!
The story line itself, as a continuation of the previous two movies, flows well, and follows an appropriate arc, both as far as relationships as well as time.
The addition of a new Dragon, and the relationship that evolves between the Light Fury and Toothless brings a new level of evolution to the existing relationship between Toothless and Hiccup, and plays on the adage of “if you love something, set it free”.
I laughed throughout the movie, at the dragons’ antics and expressions and interactions with their humans and each other. I held my breath in anticipation at some aspects, and heard myself say ‘oh no!” under my breath at one point as well. Dragons 3 drew me in from the start, and didn’t let go till the very end of the credit rolled. (We stayed until the lights came back up, and even the credits had me smiling with their small surprises!)
I found myself both wishing that this installment wouldn’t be “the end” as well as acknowledging that this story provided a fitting end to the series of films.
If there MUST be an end, this film wraps up the story nicely and provides closure, while yet leaving enough room to imagine what might come next.
I would give this movie 5 out of 5 stars, and while we did not see it in IMAX or 3D, if you have those options available, I would recommend that as well!
The film brings back the same core cast of characters as the previous two movies, with Hiccup (Jay Baruchel), Astrid, (America Ferrera), Valka (Cate Blanchet), Eret (Kit Harrington), Gobber (Craig Ferguson), Snotlout (Jonah Hill), Ruffnutt (Kristen Wiig), Tuffnut (TJ Miller), Fishlegs (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), and flashback appearances of Stoic (Gerard Butler).
The story opens on what is supposed to be a “stealthy raid” but isn’t, quite.
We learn that Hiccup and his band of friends (both Dragon and human) are on a continuous mission to rescue captured Dragons from the poachers determined to capture and exploit them.
Hiccup and his friends then bring the rescued dragons back to Berk which is now a “Dragon-Viking utopia”. This arrangement, however idyllic, does not appear to be sustainable in the long-term. It is crowded and messy and Berk is just simply running out of room to house any more Dragons! Astrid and Gobber are concerned that housing all the Dragons on Berk makes the settlement a target for the Dragon hunters, endangering the entire community.
Hiccup is still exploring and reading his father’s old records, and remains convinced that there is “more” out there. He enlists Astrid’s help in finding the hidden world where he believes that all of Berk could move to, with their Dragons to leave in peace and secrecy.
After an attack on Berk, the rest of the community is convinced that Hiccup is right (even as he is not fully convinced himself of his ability to lead them successfully) and agrees to follow him in his search for the Hidden World sanctuary.
The story follows them on their quest and the dangers and successes of the journey to find a new, more suitable home.
The music, animation, and scenery in this movie is great. The details are phenomenal, from the characters’ hair, to the movements of the Dragons, to the Hidden World cave details, really show the attention that was paid in making this movie stand out!
The story line itself, as a continuation of the previous two movies, flows well, and follows an appropriate arc, both as far as relationships as well as time.
The addition of a new Dragon, and the relationship that evolves between the Light Fury and Toothless brings a new level of evolution to the existing relationship between Toothless and Hiccup, and plays on the adage of “if you love something, set it free”.
I laughed throughout the movie, at the dragons’ antics and expressions and interactions with their humans and each other. I held my breath in anticipation at some aspects, and heard myself say ‘oh no!” under my breath at one point as well. Dragons 3 drew me in from the start, and didn’t let go till the very end of the credit rolled. (We stayed until the lights came back up, and even the credits had me smiling with their small surprises!)
I found myself both wishing that this installment wouldn’t be “the end” as well as acknowledging that this story provided a fitting end to the series of films.
If there MUST be an end, this film wraps up the story nicely and provides closure, while yet leaving enough room to imagine what might come next.
I would give this movie 5 out of 5 stars, and while we did not see it in IMAX or 3D, if you have those options available, I would recommend that as well!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Sweeping up a few older films that I wanted to see but missed at the cinema in the last few years. My current IMDb watch list sits at 488, and, unlike this movie, never seems to shrink! There is a lot to keep up with. Bad reviews have kept me away from Alexander Payne’s Downsizing until now. I have to say, without the burden of expectation, it is a lot better than I thought it would be.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Overpopulation is a growing problem in the world and two Doctors, Dr. Jorgen Asbjornsen (Rolf Lassgard) and Dr. Andreas Jacobsen (Soren Pilmark) have found what they believe is the answer. The have discovered how to shrink all kinds of living matter, including humans. Asbjornsen and a group of volunteers are shrunk and live for years before showing the world. They believe that they can help solve the worlds hunger crisis as well as overpopulation. When occupational therapist Paul Safranek (Matt Damon) first hears of this he is fascinated with the idea of doing something grand to help save the world. But it isn’t until years later when he and his wife, Audrey Safranek (Kristen Wiig), run into an old college friend, Dave Johnson (Jason Sudeikis), who has been shrunk that he realizes he might be able to have a better life at four inches tall. Because of how cheap everything is to build for new tiny people there is an opportunity to live lavishly on meager means. The Safrankek’s have been struggling to get by and really be able enjoy life. When they hear that their hundreds of thousands could be millions they see this as their chance to live the luxury life. The head out to Leisureland Estates, a tiny community, to see what the small world has to offer. After the visit they are convinced and decide to go through with the procedure and begin the irreversible process of becoming “small.” On the operation date they go to separate areas to get completely shaved and prepped. When Paul wakes up he is surprised that Audrey is not with him and she has decided she cannot go through the irreversible process. After his divorce he is left alone trying to find himself and where he fits in a whole new world, at a whole new size.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
I swung between wanting to see this and not, had it been a normal world then of course I would have gone regardless, but as it is I wasn't having strong feelings about this one.
Diana's dreams come true at the hands of an ancient artefact that can grant wishes. But as a wish is given something is taken away, and when Maxwell Lord, businessman and entrepreneur, makes a wish, the world is about to learn the lesson of the phrase... "be careful what you wish for".
First off... this absolutely would have been better on the big screen. It's never been so apparent to me that a cinema experience of a film holds so much power, it's making me understand the differences in early reviews and home viewing reviews a lot more these days.
The story of WW84 is really a very simple one. Doodad does magic, people are evil, goodie must make them good again. And that somehow fills a whole 2 hour 31 minutes of film... it doesn't feel like a very satisfying experience. For all that opener, the conclusion seems to be fleeting and dare I say it... not entirely believable. Overall the whole thing doesn't get particularly deep at any point despite there being a lot of opportunities around the wishes, and there are some questionable moments that could fill several blog posts.
There's been a long pause between me writing the first part and continuing here. That pause involved me staring at my notes and contemplating just writing "meh" and finishing the review there. I'm really going to try and elaborate on my feelings though.
For a film with two villains it's not got much proper villainy in it. Barbara Minerva becoming Cheetah is massively underwhelming from what felt like a promising build-up, and Maxwell Lord, despite having the potential, was not big bad material. Neither had the drive in them to be a truly powerful force in the film, and what's the point in a villain if you can't get on board to hate them?
Kristen Wiig did give a great performance as Barbara, it was a smooth and interesting transition as she progressed, and it left me a lot less "meh" than everything else. But did anyone else just keep thinking Catwoman though?
I thought Pedro Pascal had 80's businessman down pretty well, but I found him to be a little lacklustre, and the character's story felt like the reason for that.
As with the first film, Gal Gadot is majestic on screen as Diana and Wonder Woman... but even here I found myself shrugging at what was going on, and cringing at some problematic plot points. I'm trying to work out if the appeal of the first film was partially due to the amusement of Diana discovering the world for the first time. Here she's savvy and elegant (even for the 0s), and she didn't have the same humour. Instead, we've got that role filled by Steve (Chris Pine). His discovery of the 80s world was fairly amusing, but the way in which he came back bugged me.
All in all characters really didn't grab me, out two main newbies felt very much like rip-offs of other things rather than a great recreation of their source material.
Visually the film was amazing, the bright colours, the style, all fit the era and you gotta love some parachute pants. But outside of that it just merged into other films for me.
That CGI... how can you get so many things right but somehow not do the villains? It's Steppenwolf all over again, Cheetah looked bad. Not only that, but it took an immense amount of time for us to even get to that full effect... so why wasn't it on point? How are DC incapable of animating their villains?
Will I watch this again? Probably, but I'm not overly fussed about it being anytime soon. It wasn't anywhere near as entertaining as the first for me, and didn't have enough action to cover up the disappointing story and character work. I really wish I felt strongly one way or the other on this and not having just another sitting on the fence swinging my feet review. I did appreciate some early vaguely Quidditchy vibes at the beginning though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/wonder-woman-1984-movie-review.html
Diana's dreams come true at the hands of an ancient artefact that can grant wishes. But as a wish is given something is taken away, and when Maxwell Lord, businessman and entrepreneur, makes a wish, the world is about to learn the lesson of the phrase... "be careful what you wish for".
First off... this absolutely would have been better on the big screen. It's never been so apparent to me that a cinema experience of a film holds so much power, it's making me understand the differences in early reviews and home viewing reviews a lot more these days.
The story of WW84 is really a very simple one. Doodad does magic, people are evil, goodie must make them good again. And that somehow fills a whole 2 hour 31 minutes of film... it doesn't feel like a very satisfying experience. For all that opener, the conclusion seems to be fleeting and dare I say it... not entirely believable. Overall the whole thing doesn't get particularly deep at any point despite there being a lot of opportunities around the wishes, and there are some questionable moments that could fill several blog posts.
There's been a long pause between me writing the first part and continuing here. That pause involved me staring at my notes and contemplating just writing "meh" and finishing the review there. I'm really going to try and elaborate on my feelings though.
For a film with two villains it's not got much proper villainy in it. Barbara Minerva becoming Cheetah is massively underwhelming from what felt like a promising build-up, and Maxwell Lord, despite having the potential, was not big bad material. Neither had the drive in them to be a truly powerful force in the film, and what's the point in a villain if you can't get on board to hate them?
Kristen Wiig did give a great performance as Barbara, it was a smooth and interesting transition as she progressed, and it left me a lot less "meh" than everything else. But did anyone else just keep thinking Catwoman though?
I thought Pedro Pascal had 80's businessman down pretty well, but I found him to be a little lacklustre, and the character's story felt like the reason for that.
As with the first film, Gal Gadot is majestic on screen as Diana and Wonder Woman... but even here I found myself shrugging at what was going on, and cringing at some problematic plot points. I'm trying to work out if the appeal of the first film was partially due to the amusement of Diana discovering the world for the first time. Here she's savvy and elegant (even for the 0s), and she didn't have the same humour. Instead, we've got that role filled by Steve (Chris Pine). His discovery of the 80s world was fairly amusing, but the way in which he came back bugged me.
All in all characters really didn't grab me, out two main newbies felt very much like rip-offs of other things rather than a great recreation of their source material.
Visually the film was amazing, the bright colours, the style, all fit the era and you gotta love some parachute pants. But outside of that it just merged into other films for me.
That CGI... how can you get so many things right but somehow not do the villains? It's Steppenwolf all over again, Cheetah looked bad. Not only that, but it took an immense amount of time for us to even get to that full effect... so why wasn't it on point? How are DC incapable of animating their villains?
Will I watch this again? Probably, but I'm not overly fussed about it being anytime soon. It wasn't anywhere near as entertaining as the first for me, and didn't have enough action to cover up the disappointing story and character work. I really wish I felt strongly one way or the other on this and not having just another sitting on the fence swinging my feet review. I did appreciate some early vaguely Quidditchy vibes at the beginning though.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/wonder-woman-1984-movie-review.html