Search
Search results
Infected by Scott Sigler
Podcast
Across America a mysterious disease is turning ordinary people into raving, paranoid murderers who...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
May 29, 2021
Continuation of the original story, with thrills and suspense throughout (1 more)
Great cast - Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe are particularly good
Plot Summary:
In a pre-title sequence, we return to “Day 1” of the events of the first movie to see how life in the Abbott’s home town changed forever when chaos reigned down from the skies.
Rolling forward 473 days later, the plot picks up on the life of Evelyn (Emily Blunt), Regan (Millicent Simmons) and Marcus (Noah Jupe), following the dramatic events of “A Quiet Place” and the death of husband/father Lee (John Kravinski).
The three, together with Evelyn’s newborn, set off on a perilous journey to find help.
Positives:
- Sequels often try to over-reach, lobbing-in over-the-top action and forgetting why the audience so loved the original hit. This sequel doesn't fall into that trap, continuing the story in a seamless way. We very quickly get reinvested in the character's dire situation (as their situation suddenly gets even more dire!).
- The pre-title sequence is perfectly paced and utterly thrilling. It's the sequence that most grabbed my attention so many months (years?!) ago when - pre-Covid - I first saw the trailer attached below. That bus!!
- The ensemble cast works well together. Cillian Murphy is a fine actor, filling the Krasinski-shaped hole. And Emily Blunt is as kick-ass and wonderful as always. But special 'attaboys' need to go to the two youngsters, Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe. They were impressive in the first movie but here have to carry even more of the dramatic action and are just brilliant.
- Technically, the film has Oscar-worthy strengths.
-- The editing here is first rate: many of the jump scares are well-signposted, but they still work thanks to the timing of the cuts.
-- The sound design is (as you would expect) fantastic: once again this is a movie where snacks should be banned!
-- The soundtrack, by Marco Beltrami, is great, building on his themes from the original but knowing when to shut-up as well!
Negatives:
- It's a genuine joy to see John Krasinski in the dramatic pre-title sequence reprising his role of Lee Abbott. But then his massive presence is missed for the rest of the movie. Perhaps killing him off at the end of part 1 wasn't such a good idea?
- There's a lot of 'grief and mourning' to contend with here, post- (or nearly post-) Covid. This didn't affect me. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man was 'not mentally ready' for it, and actively disliked the film as a result.
Summary Thoughts on "A Quiet Place Part II": Often a sequel doesn't live up to my expectations. Particularly so when I've loved the original AND had to wait SOOOOOOoooooooo long to see it. But this time I was not disappointed. I gave the original 5 stars. This naturally lacks the originality of the premise and is - imho - less good. But not by a great margin. It's still a rollercoaster thrill-ride that - at 97 minutes - doesn't overstay its welcome. Sometimes 'more of the same' is enough.
This is also a great movie to get people back into cinemas. Because, ladies and gents, since this is a MUST SEE on the big screen, and ideally in a screen with a great sound system.
As long as Krasinski stays at the helm, I'll personally be looking forwards to AQP - Part III, which I understand is in the works.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb or Facebook. Thanks.)
In a pre-title sequence, we return to “Day 1” of the events of the first movie to see how life in the Abbott’s home town changed forever when chaos reigned down from the skies.
Rolling forward 473 days later, the plot picks up on the life of Evelyn (Emily Blunt), Regan (Millicent Simmons) and Marcus (Noah Jupe), following the dramatic events of “A Quiet Place” and the death of husband/father Lee (John Kravinski).
The three, together with Evelyn’s newborn, set off on a perilous journey to find help.
Positives:
- Sequels often try to over-reach, lobbing-in over-the-top action and forgetting why the audience so loved the original hit. This sequel doesn't fall into that trap, continuing the story in a seamless way. We very quickly get reinvested in the character's dire situation (as their situation suddenly gets even more dire!).
- The pre-title sequence is perfectly paced and utterly thrilling. It's the sequence that most grabbed my attention so many months (years?!) ago when - pre-Covid - I first saw the trailer attached below. That bus!!
- The ensemble cast works well together. Cillian Murphy is a fine actor, filling the Krasinski-shaped hole. And Emily Blunt is as kick-ass and wonderful as always. But special 'attaboys' need to go to the two youngsters, Millicent Simmonds and Noah Jupe. They were impressive in the first movie but here have to carry even more of the dramatic action and are just brilliant.
- Technically, the film has Oscar-worthy strengths.
-- The editing here is first rate: many of the jump scares are well-signposted, but they still work thanks to the timing of the cuts.
-- The sound design is (as you would expect) fantastic: once again this is a movie where snacks should be banned!
-- The soundtrack, by Marco Beltrami, is great, building on his themes from the original but knowing when to shut-up as well!
Negatives:
- It's a genuine joy to see John Krasinski in the dramatic pre-title sequence reprising his role of Lee Abbott. But then his massive presence is missed for the rest of the movie. Perhaps killing him off at the end of part 1 wasn't such a good idea?
- There's a lot of 'grief and mourning' to contend with here, post- (or nearly post-) Covid. This didn't affect me. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man was 'not mentally ready' for it, and actively disliked the film as a result.
Summary Thoughts on "A Quiet Place Part II": Often a sequel doesn't live up to my expectations. Particularly so when I've loved the original AND had to wait SOOOOOOoooooooo long to see it. But this time I was not disappointed. I gave the original 5 stars. This naturally lacks the originality of the premise and is - imho - less good. But not by a great margin. It's still a rollercoaster thrill-ride that - at 97 minutes - doesn't overstay its welcome. Sometimes 'more of the same' is enough.
This is also a great movie to get people back into cinemas. Because, ladies and gents, since this is a MUST SEE on the big screen, and ideally in a screen with a great sound system.
As long as Krasinski stays at the helm, I'll personally be looking forwards to AQP - Part III, which I understand is in the works.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb or Facebook. Thanks.)
Rannvijay Singha Official App
Music and Entertainment
App
Follow Rannvijay Singha through his Official App smarturl.it/RannvijaySingha. Download the free...
2Screens - Presentation Expert
Business and Productivity
App
2Screens - Presentation Expert is a feature rich document manager and viewer, complete with...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021 (Updated Sep 29, 2021)
Miss Scarlett at the Airport with the Jet Engine.
“Game Night” is an American comedy film starring Jason Bateman (“Horrible Bosses”, “Central Intelligence“) as Max and Rachel McAdams (“Spotlight“, “Doctor Strange“) as Annie: two hyper-competitive professionals who invite other couples around to their house for a weekly night of charades and board games. The regulars are long-term couple Kevin and Michelle (Lamorne Morris and Kylie Bunbury) and complete buffoon Ryan (Billy Magnussen, “The Big Short“) and his revolving door of generally vacant girlfriends. Estranged from the group, after his divorce, is the creepy police officer Gary (Jesse Plemons, “The Post“, “American Made“) who lives next door.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Ashley Valencia (5 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Apr 13, 2019
I Wanted to Like It
The animated Beauty and the Beast is one of my favorite movies to this day so i really wanted to like this film and tried to go in with no expectations.
I knew we were in trouble when Emma Watson started her first song of the film HEAVILY autotuned. The practice used to be that if an actor couldnt sing, they would lip sync and have someone else do the singing voice. This was also common practice for the animated films, one actor for singing and another for spoken lines. I wish they would've gone this route. The autotuning is just so heavy I found it cringey.
The film is gorgeous, a lot of pleasing visuals and effects but the Beast just looks, strange. Not really animalistic. Honestly more like if his face was carved out of a tree.
Despite the singing issue I do think the cast was well chosen. They all do a good job with what they have. Especially the actor playing Gaston. It seemed clear that they weren't 100% sure what to do with the character. At a few points it seemed like they were going to try to make him sympathetic but then they'd fall back on him just being awful. Still the actor did an amazing job and really sold it.
For the most part the plot sticks close to the original film though there are a few new elements, some background on Belle's mom, and new songs.
A few weeks before the film's release the director announced that there was definitely a gay character in the film. There are a few implications that there might be but that's it. I think honestly it would've come across better, he would've been given more credit, if he'd just let it be instead of making a big announcement and patting himself on the back. It would've seemed like a subtle nod to the lgbtq community instead of the false disappointing promise it turned out to be. He wanted the credit without actually putting in the work and it shows.
Overall I just didn't care for it. It's fine. Nothing spectacular. The animated film was definitely better. So I'd say stick with the classic however it is worth watching just to see the different interpretation of the story.
If you want a live action version I would recommend La Belle et la Bete, the 2014 French-Germanic version instead. It's a more interesting and visually stunning version of the story.
I knew we were in trouble when Emma Watson started her first song of the film HEAVILY autotuned. The practice used to be that if an actor couldnt sing, they would lip sync and have someone else do the singing voice. This was also common practice for the animated films, one actor for singing and another for spoken lines. I wish they would've gone this route. The autotuning is just so heavy I found it cringey.
The film is gorgeous, a lot of pleasing visuals and effects but the Beast just looks, strange. Not really animalistic. Honestly more like if his face was carved out of a tree.
Despite the singing issue I do think the cast was well chosen. They all do a good job with what they have. Especially the actor playing Gaston. It seemed clear that they weren't 100% sure what to do with the character. At a few points it seemed like they were going to try to make him sympathetic but then they'd fall back on him just being awful. Still the actor did an amazing job and really sold it.
For the most part the plot sticks close to the original film though there are a few new elements, some background on Belle's mom, and new songs.
A few weeks before the film's release the director announced that there was definitely a gay character in the film. There are a few implications that there might be but that's it. I think honestly it would've come across better, he would've been given more credit, if he'd just let it be instead of making a big announcement and patting himself on the back. It would've seemed like a subtle nod to the lgbtq community instead of the false disappointing promise it turned out to be. He wanted the credit without actually putting in the work and it shows.
Overall I just didn't care for it. It's fine. Nothing spectacular. The animated film was definitely better. So I'd say stick with the classic however it is worth watching just to see the different interpretation of the story.
If you want a live action version I would recommend La Belle et la Bete, the 2014 French-Germanic version instead. It's a more interesting and visually stunning version of the story.
Kyera (8 KP) rated The Mortal Instruments 1: City of Bones in Books
Jan 31, 2018
City of Bones is the book that started the phenomenon that is the Shadowhunters world and fandom. The book introduces us to a beloved cast of characters and the fascinating Shadow World that will be developed over the course of the future novels. We discover the world through the eyes of Clary Fray, a girl who always thought she was normal but discovers that she is actually part of a race of people who are part-angel and spend their days fighting back the demon hordes.
Clary and her best friend Simon are thrust into a world full of werewolves, vampires, warlocks, fairies and demons. They meet three Shadowhunters around their age: Jace, Izzy and Alec who live in the New York Institute. The first book has a number of different action scenes, but I think it shines most in the world-building department. Cassandra Clare develops an intricate world that you can easily imagine and yet is infinitely more complex than our own familiar one.
While there is some character development, the book only takes place over a period of two weeks. We are just getting to know the characters and that development or growth will come in later books. For now, we are learning about these characters and their secrets. Having read the series before, I am already in love with certain characters so it's strange seeing their early personas. They grow so much over the course of the six books that there are some that I don't particularly connect to, yet absolutely adore them later on.
Although I relate most to Clary, Jace is by far my favourite character in the series. He is witty, sarcastic and has the best lines in any scene. Some of the other characters have hilarious, memorable lines as well because Cassie writes fantastic dialogue - but Jace is the star. He can cause you to laugh out loud, which might garner you strange looks if you're in public reading.
This book is fantastic, but you can definitely see the difference in writing quality between this book and Cassie's most recent series. I think the writing is well done, the world building is immersive and the characters are relatable. I adore this book because it is what introduced me to the Shadow World and my beloved Shadowhunters, but I can admit that her writing has come so far in the last ten years. Regardless, I cannot recommend this series more to young adult/teen fans of fantasy, books with unique and immersive world building and if you're willing to continue with it fantastic character building throughout the series.
Clary and her best friend Simon are thrust into a world full of werewolves, vampires, warlocks, fairies and demons. They meet three Shadowhunters around their age: Jace, Izzy and Alec who live in the New York Institute. The first book has a number of different action scenes, but I think it shines most in the world-building department. Cassandra Clare develops an intricate world that you can easily imagine and yet is infinitely more complex than our own familiar one.
While there is some character development, the book only takes place over a period of two weeks. We are just getting to know the characters and that development or growth will come in later books. For now, we are learning about these characters and their secrets. Having read the series before, I am already in love with certain characters so it's strange seeing their early personas. They grow so much over the course of the six books that there are some that I don't particularly connect to, yet absolutely adore them later on.
Although I relate most to Clary, Jace is by far my favourite character in the series. He is witty, sarcastic and has the best lines in any scene. Some of the other characters have hilarious, memorable lines as well because Cassie writes fantastic dialogue - but Jace is the star. He can cause you to laugh out loud, which might garner you strange looks if you're in public reading.
This book is fantastic, but you can definitely see the difference in writing quality between this book and Cassie's most recent series. I think the writing is well done, the world building is immersive and the characters are relatable. I adore this book because it is what introduced me to the Shadow World and my beloved Shadowhunters, but I can admit that her writing has come so far in the last ten years. Regardless, I cannot recommend this series more to young adult/teen fans of fantasy, books with unique and immersive world building and if you're willing to continue with it fantastic character building throughout the series.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Mile 22 (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018 (Updated Sep 20, 2018)
The Movie Equivelant of a Shrug
I saw Mile 22 last night and when I got in my dad asked me how it was. I replied with a simple shrug and that is honestly the best way to sum up this movie. It's not bad and it's not great. The worst thing about that is that Peter Berg and Mark Wahlberg have worked together 3 times prior to this movie and all 3 times have resulted in fantastic movies, not mediocre ones like this. I was looking forward to this going in knowing that it was Berg and Wahlberg working together again and I have really liked everything else they have made together, (especially Patriot's Day,) but this is unfortunately the worst film that they have made together so far, but it's still not awful.
The best thing about this film is definitely Iko Uwais. Whenever we get to see him doing his thing on screen, it is electrifying. The issue here though is the way that Jacques Jouffret decided to shoot these sequences is choppy and incoherent at times. Why would you cast one of the best fight choreographers in the world in your movie and then every time he get to fight onscreen, you decided to shake the camera about and make 10+ jump-cuts in the space of a few minutes?
Rhonda Rousey is in the movie too and surprisingly I didn't cringe every time she spoke and instead felt that she did a pretty decent job with what she was given. Lauren Cohen was fine too, we all know that she can do a pretty solid American accent at this point because of her work on The Walking Dead. Wahlberg is perfectly serviceable here too, he has been better in other things, but he also been far worse. It is hard to waste an actor like John Malkovich in a film and yet they manage it here, literally any actor could have played his role.
The end is also pretty rubbish. There is a flimsy twist followed by a sequel tease and then the credits abruptly appear. They are clearly aiming for a sequel, but it would have been nice if they could have tied this movie up a bit better first.
Overall, this is an okay action flick with some cool stunts that doesn't live up to what it could have been and ends too abruptly. There are some cool stunts and satisfying kills in the film, but they could have been shot a lot better.
The best thing about this film is definitely Iko Uwais. Whenever we get to see him doing his thing on screen, it is electrifying. The issue here though is the way that Jacques Jouffret decided to shoot these sequences is choppy and incoherent at times. Why would you cast one of the best fight choreographers in the world in your movie and then every time he get to fight onscreen, you decided to shake the camera about and make 10+ jump-cuts in the space of a few minutes?
Rhonda Rousey is in the movie too and surprisingly I didn't cringe every time she spoke and instead felt that she did a pretty decent job with what she was given. Lauren Cohen was fine too, we all know that she can do a pretty solid American accent at this point because of her work on The Walking Dead. Wahlberg is perfectly serviceable here too, he has been better in other things, but he also been far worse. It is hard to waste an actor like John Malkovich in a film and yet they manage it here, literally any actor could have played his role.
The end is also pretty rubbish. There is a flimsy twist followed by a sequel tease and then the credits abruptly appear. They are clearly aiming for a sequel, but it would have been nice if they could have tied this movie up a bit better first.
Overall, this is an okay action flick with some cool stunts that doesn't live up to what it could have been and ends too abruptly. There are some cool stunts and satisfying kills in the film, but they could have been shot a lot better.
I received a complimentary copy of this book in return for an honest review and although it has taken me a while to read it, I have really enjoyed the content and style of the information provided.
This book gives a very in-depth and detailed re-telling of the Battle of Gettysburg, and more specifically the charge of Barksdale himself. A battle and time that will live forever in history, Phillip Thomas Tucker weaves the death and grim reality of war with insightful quotes, maps and ideas about how this battle really occurred.
There are several outstanding aspects of this book, however first I feel it is necessary to warn any potential readers that this book is not that easy to read. I am a frequent reader of non-fiction books, and more specifically historical non-fiction, and this is amongst one of the hardest I have read, but the effort is well worth it. At times, it is just a little over loaded with details such as names, positions in the armies etc, and with the same names appearing in both sides of the battle as well as within the same units, it can get a little hard to keep track of everyone!
On a much more positive note though, the detailed research the author must have done truly does shine through on every page. The quotes from letters, the pictures and the maps, to name but a few things, really do add a whole new dimension to the book. Personally, it made it all seem a lot more real, helping me to engage more with the trials of those poor men (and horses) stuck in the mud and terror of that day. Although knowing all the names did get slightly confusing at times, it was a great touch in helping 'bring home' the reality and enormity of the loss at that battle.
In addition, the pace with which the events were told was pitched just right. Although packed with detail, the book still had a great pace and a pull to it. The action of the battle really does pour through the pages and come alive. It's written with great skill and is one of the best 'battle recounts' that I have read in a long time.
In conclusion, I can only praise this book for summarising one of the pivotal battles of the American Civil War. Detailed, at times a little too much so, and a compelling, engaging and at times emotional read that I would recommend to anyone who has an interest in this period of history, or who is studying this.
This book gives a very in-depth and detailed re-telling of the Battle of Gettysburg, and more specifically the charge of Barksdale himself. A battle and time that will live forever in history, Phillip Thomas Tucker weaves the death and grim reality of war with insightful quotes, maps and ideas about how this battle really occurred.
There are several outstanding aspects of this book, however first I feel it is necessary to warn any potential readers that this book is not that easy to read. I am a frequent reader of non-fiction books, and more specifically historical non-fiction, and this is amongst one of the hardest I have read, but the effort is well worth it. At times, it is just a little over loaded with details such as names, positions in the armies etc, and with the same names appearing in both sides of the battle as well as within the same units, it can get a little hard to keep track of everyone!
On a much more positive note though, the detailed research the author must have done truly does shine through on every page. The quotes from letters, the pictures and the maps, to name but a few things, really do add a whole new dimension to the book. Personally, it made it all seem a lot more real, helping me to engage more with the trials of those poor men (and horses) stuck in the mud and terror of that day. Although knowing all the names did get slightly confusing at times, it was a great touch in helping 'bring home' the reality and enormity of the loss at that battle.
In addition, the pace with which the events were told was pitched just right. Although packed with detail, the book still had a great pace and a pull to it. The action of the battle really does pour through the pages and come alive. It's written with great skill and is one of the best 'battle recounts' that I have read in a long time.
In conclusion, I can only praise this book for summarising one of the pivotal battles of the American Civil War. Detailed, at times a little too much so, and a compelling, engaging and at times emotional read that I would recommend to anyone who has an interest in this period of history, or who is studying this.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Disney has continued their trend of live-action remakes of their animated classics with “Dumbo”. The film follows the same premise as the 1941 classic in that a baby elephant with giant ears is born into a travelling circus. Like in the animated film he is separated from his mother and soon becomes an unlikely circus act when it is discovered that his giant ears give him the power of flight.
In the new version we are introduced to Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell); who returns from WWI injured and dealing with the fact that his wife has died and he must raise their two children alone. Further complicating matters is the fact that Circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito), has sold the prized horses Holt used in his act in an effort to keep his struggling circus alive.
What has become a tragedy soon becomes a boon when wealthy industrialist V.A. Vandevere (<ichael Keaton) offers to make Max a partner and take him and his troup on at his fabled entertainment park with Dumbo as his featured star.
It is at this point where the film takes some wild deviations and becomes very linear with paper thin characters and an emphasis on effects over story.
Director Tim Burton has once again crafted a film filled with lavish visuals as his take on the entertainment park and circus is amazing; but it as usual comes at a cost. Like most of Burton’s works, the visuals are the star and key element and the development of characters and story are often given little more than lip service.
The same is true fro this film as we learn noting about the motivation of the characters and the villains play out as stock baddies without even a nod as to why they are so inclined to tehir action.s They are being evil just for the sake of being evil. The same can be said for the other characters as we are given very little reasons to care for them. There is a nice subplot with Eva Green but it is never fully developed and the worst part is that the title star almost becomes an afterthought in the final acts so we can be given scene after scene of lavinsh park visuals.
The film may be a bit to dark and intense at times for younger viewers and those who remember the original may have a hard time with this take of the film. It entertains at times but could have been so much better.
http://sknr.net/2019/03/26/dumbo/
In the new version we are introduced to Holt Farrier (Colin Farrell); who returns from WWI injured and dealing with the fact that his wife has died and he must raise their two children alone. Further complicating matters is the fact that Circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito), has sold the prized horses Holt used in his act in an effort to keep his struggling circus alive.
What has become a tragedy soon becomes a boon when wealthy industrialist V.A. Vandevere (<ichael Keaton) offers to make Max a partner and take him and his troup on at his fabled entertainment park with Dumbo as his featured star.
It is at this point where the film takes some wild deviations and becomes very linear with paper thin characters and an emphasis on effects over story.
Director Tim Burton has once again crafted a film filled with lavish visuals as his take on the entertainment park and circus is amazing; but it as usual comes at a cost. Like most of Burton’s works, the visuals are the star and key element and the development of characters and story are often given little more than lip service.
The same is true fro this film as we learn noting about the motivation of the characters and the villains play out as stock baddies without even a nod as to why they are so inclined to tehir action.s They are being evil just for the sake of being evil. The same can be said for the other characters as we are given very little reasons to care for them. There is a nice subplot with Eva Green but it is never fully developed and the worst part is that the title star almost becomes an afterthought in the final acts so we can be given scene after scene of lavinsh park visuals.
The film may be a bit to dark and intense at times for younger viewers and those who remember the original may have a hard time with this take of the film. It entertains at times but could have been so much better.
http://sknr.net/2019/03/26/dumbo/