Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Anna (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Appearances are deceiving, not only with our main character Anna but with the trailer for this film too. What I was expecting was Atomic Blonde, what I got was Atomic Blonde mixed with Red Sparrow but with none of the redeeming features of either.
I would normally at this point write a slightly expanded synopsis of the film, but reading back my notes even I can't remember (or work out) what happened at the beginning of the film.
This confusion is the one consistent thing throughout the whole film.
The TV shows Hustle and Leverage like to do the reveal where they show you a scene unfold and then play it back a little later showing you the truth behind what actually happened. Anna does this too, excessively. We jump around the timeline so much that eventually when you see the words "X months earlier" you just let out a resigned sigh.
I've been contemplating how the film would have played out if they'd don't it in a more traditional/chronological order. I'm not sure that there would have been enough to keep you interested in what was going on. It certainly would have left the ending surprise heavy with little to no pay off for your patience.
Anna looked to be a serious action-fest and in the trailer we see a well choreographed restaurant fight that I had particularly been looking forward to. The finished product was somehow incredibly dull and unengaging and I think that's entirely down to the music. In the trailer they picked an upbeat track and the action is cut to coincide with the punchy notes, it makes you react to what's happening. The music in the final cut does not contribute anything to what's going on at all. I've seen this happen previously with Kingsman: The Golden Circle, although in that case the scene wasn't hurt as much as here.
Luke Evans is the main Russian spy, Alex, he's strong and decisive. Cillian Murphy is the CIA agent, Lenny, he's abrasive and suspicious. Both characters are ultimately the same, but different. There's little to work out about either man or their relationship with Anna.
Anna is played by Sasha Luss, her only other acting credit is in Valerian and the City with a longer than necessary name (actual title of the film... I'm sure of it), I honestly wouldn't have recognised her from it. There's little that's memorable about her in this, which is worrying as the main character. The part was let down by the story, and while I'm sure she has the ability to do Anna justice I don't think anything here gave her the opportunity to try.
We're also treated to Helen Mirren, she is wonderful all the time, and this wasn't any different. I loved her performance in this as it was something a bit grittier, but I don't think her character and the script really aligned. She's shown as an astute spy and she picks up on the little details... unless it's essential to the plot that she doesn't.
Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but the promise of the trailer and the delivery of the film held very different things for the viewer. There are much better examples of this sort of film out there, it doesn't feel like it brings anything new to the table.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/anna-movie-review.html
I would normally at this point write a slightly expanded synopsis of the film, but reading back my notes even I can't remember (or work out) what happened at the beginning of the film.
This confusion is the one consistent thing throughout the whole film.
The TV shows Hustle and Leverage like to do the reveal where they show you a scene unfold and then play it back a little later showing you the truth behind what actually happened. Anna does this too, excessively. We jump around the timeline so much that eventually when you see the words "X months earlier" you just let out a resigned sigh.
I've been contemplating how the film would have played out if they'd don't it in a more traditional/chronological order. I'm not sure that there would have been enough to keep you interested in what was going on. It certainly would have left the ending surprise heavy with little to no pay off for your patience.
Anna looked to be a serious action-fest and in the trailer we see a well choreographed restaurant fight that I had particularly been looking forward to. The finished product was somehow incredibly dull and unengaging and I think that's entirely down to the music. In the trailer they picked an upbeat track and the action is cut to coincide with the punchy notes, it makes you react to what's happening. The music in the final cut does not contribute anything to what's going on at all. I've seen this happen previously with Kingsman: The Golden Circle, although in that case the scene wasn't hurt as much as here.
Luke Evans is the main Russian spy, Alex, he's strong and decisive. Cillian Murphy is the CIA agent, Lenny, he's abrasive and suspicious. Both characters are ultimately the same, but different. There's little to work out about either man or their relationship with Anna.
Anna is played by Sasha Luss, her only other acting credit is in Valerian and the City with a longer than necessary name (actual title of the film... I'm sure of it), I honestly wouldn't have recognised her from it. There's little that's memorable about her in this, which is worrying as the main character. The part was let down by the story, and while I'm sure she has the ability to do Anna justice I don't think anything here gave her the opportunity to try.
We're also treated to Helen Mirren, she is wonderful all the time, and this wasn't any different. I loved her performance in this as it was something a bit grittier, but I don't think her character and the script really aligned. She's shown as an astute spy and she picks up on the little details... unless it's essential to the plot that she doesn't.
Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but the promise of the trailer and the delivery of the film held very different things for the viewer. There are much better examples of this sort of film out there, it doesn't feel like it brings anything new to the table.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/anna-movie-review.html
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A tale as old as time
Whichever big wig down at Disney decided it would be a good idea to remake all of their animated classics using live-action is surely due a massive promotion. The studio’s reputation is soaring after the acquisition of Marvel and Lucasfilm and this new way of thinking is paying off at the box office.
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You won’t uncork a bottle of Malbec again without thinking of this film…
“The Girl on a Train” is the film adaptation of the best-seller by Paula Hawkins, transported from the London suburbs to New York’s Hastings-on-Hudson.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Fate of the Furious (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Blood is thicker than Diesel.
All work and no play makes bob-the-movie-man a tardy reviewer. Still, what better way to break the fast than with “Fast and Furious 8” (aka “The Fate of the Furious”)?
Well, quite a lot of things actually!
Now, I have a confession to make (and I know for some this will be the equivalent of an appalling statement like “I’ve never seen Star Wars”). I have actually never ever seen Fast and Furious 1 through 7! (If it’s any mitigation to this cinematic crime, I did see the F-and-F wannabe “Need for Speed“).
So I was going to be completely lost with the “plot” right? Well actually, no. It was pretty easy to jump in and follow as a piece of popcorn nonsense.
The M25 water main burst was a real bitch for the Monday morning rush-hour.
For nonsense it is (hence the “rabbit ears” round the word “plot” above). The story isn’t just a bit far-fetched. It’s bat-shit crazy where the bat in question has downed a questionable vindaloo two hours earlier!
Dom (Vin Diesel) has turned on his “family”, including his squeeze, the lovely Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“), to team with the above-the-law (and above the clouds) cyber-super-terrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron, “Mad Max: Fury Road“). They have teamed up, apparently, for no other reason than to allow Cipher to ‘kick some global ass’ with a nuclear threat. But given his caring and sharing side, why the sudden betrayal of his nearest and dearest by Dom?
Ice Queen Metallica fan Theron, showing off her hardware.
Where do you begin with the nonsensical story? Jumping from Cuba (with some admittedly fun scenes, but shamelessly objectifying scantily-clad women) via Berlin and New York to the icy wastes of Siberia, it’s just an excuse to show fast cars doing ludicrously unlikely things. There is zero logic within any of the script. Here are just a handful of examples:
the team know (through enormous jumps of speculation) to be present at a particular location in the world and at exactly the time that Dom is there (arrive, look through binoculars, “Oh, there he is”!);
all cars can be automatically hijacked and remotely driven (who knew), but NOT those of the team (obviously);
fast cars/tanks/etc can be magicked from New York to Siberia (wot, no Hertz Siberia available?);
Russian nuclear codes are stolen, so obviously they can’t be changed?
a nuclear submarine is out of the water on wooden blocks, but spin the propeller really REALLY fast and it can suddenly be sailing away.
Muscle for muscle it never looked like being a fair fight.
I appreciate I am being enormously po-faced about this, and this is designed as pure escapism. But is there REALLY any need for this to be such mindless escapism? The director (Gary Gray, “The Italian Job”) and writer (Chris Morgan, responsible for parts 6 and 7) should credit their audience with rather more in the way of intelligence.
Diesel and Johnson are never going to set the acting ablaze, but Rodriquez (“Lost”) is as watchable as ever. Theron has fun with her villainy and the supporting turns by Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris are enjoyable. Nathalie Emmanuel though as Ramsey seems as uncomfortable with her “sexy English” stereotype as she should be.
A long way from Brookside. Nathalie Emmanuel uncomfortable as “the sexy one”.
Luke Evans (“The Hobbit“), Kurt Russell (“Deepwater Horizon“) and Helen Mirren (“Eye in the Sky“) turn up in entertaining but underused cameos, but it is Jason Statham as Deckard that has the most fun in the whole film, and his scenes – done largely for comic effect – are the best part of the movie. (But “math” Jason? “MATH”?? I hope your old maths teacher back in London doesn’t get to see this film).
Parking enforcement by the City Council was getting more and more stringent.
If you’re willing to park your brain at the door for two hours then it has some fun moments. But I felt the damage to my IQ might not have been worth the risk, and this really didn’t fill my cinematic tank.
Well, quite a lot of things actually!
Now, I have a confession to make (and I know for some this will be the equivalent of an appalling statement like “I’ve never seen Star Wars”). I have actually never ever seen Fast and Furious 1 through 7! (If it’s any mitigation to this cinematic crime, I did see the F-and-F wannabe “Need for Speed“).
So I was going to be completely lost with the “plot” right? Well actually, no. It was pretty easy to jump in and follow as a piece of popcorn nonsense.
The M25 water main burst was a real bitch for the Monday morning rush-hour.
For nonsense it is (hence the “rabbit ears” round the word “plot” above). The story isn’t just a bit far-fetched. It’s bat-shit crazy where the bat in question has downed a questionable vindaloo two hours earlier!
Dom (Vin Diesel) has turned on his “family”, including his squeeze, the lovely Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“), to team with the above-the-law (and above the clouds) cyber-super-terrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron, “Mad Max: Fury Road“). They have teamed up, apparently, for no other reason than to allow Cipher to ‘kick some global ass’ with a nuclear threat. But given his caring and sharing side, why the sudden betrayal of his nearest and dearest by Dom?
Ice Queen Metallica fan Theron, showing off her hardware.
Where do you begin with the nonsensical story? Jumping from Cuba (with some admittedly fun scenes, but shamelessly objectifying scantily-clad women) via Berlin and New York to the icy wastes of Siberia, it’s just an excuse to show fast cars doing ludicrously unlikely things. There is zero logic within any of the script. Here are just a handful of examples:
the team know (through enormous jumps of speculation) to be present at a particular location in the world and at exactly the time that Dom is there (arrive, look through binoculars, “Oh, there he is”!);
all cars can be automatically hijacked and remotely driven (who knew), but NOT those of the team (obviously);
fast cars/tanks/etc can be magicked from New York to Siberia (wot, no Hertz Siberia available?);
Russian nuclear codes are stolen, so obviously they can’t be changed?
a nuclear submarine is out of the water on wooden blocks, but spin the propeller really REALLY fast and it can suddenly be sailing away.
Muscle for muscle it never looked like being a fair fight.
I appreciate I am being enormously po-faced about this, and this is designed as pure escapism. But is there REALLY any need for this to be such mindless escapism? The director (Gary Gray, “The Italian Job”) and writer (Chris Morgan, responsible for parts 6 and 7) should credit their audience with rather more in the way of intelligence.
Diesel and Johnson are never going to set the acting ablaze, but Rodriquez (“Lost”) is as watchable as ever. Theron has fun with her villainy and the supporting turns by Tyrese Gibson and Ludacris are enjoyable. Nathalie Emmanuel though as Ramsey seems as uncomfortable with her “sexy English” stereotype as she should be.
A long way from Brookside. Nathalie Emmanuel uncomfortable as “the sexy one”.
Luke Evans (“The Hobbit“), Kurt Russell (“Deepwater Horizon“) and Helen Mirren (“Eye in the Sky“) turn up in entertaining but underused cameos, but it is Jason Statham as Deckard that has the most fun in the whole film, and his scenes – done largely for comic effect – are the best part of the movie. (But “math” Jason? “MATH”?? I hope your old maths teacher back in London doesn’t get to see this film).
Parking enforcement by the City Council was getting more and more stringent.
If you’re willing to park your brain at the door for two hours then it has some fun moments. But I felt the damage to my IQ might not have been worth the risk, and this really didn’t fill my cinematic tank.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Lightyear (2022) in Movies
Jun 17, 2022
Visually gorgeous animation (2 more)
Sox
Designs of the insects, robots, and especially Zurg
Too much Star Wars influence (1 more)
Writing is a bit underwhelming
A Visually Gorgeous Nod to Science Fiction
Lightyear has a simple premise that fits it into the Toy Story timeline while also giving the film the freedom to creatively do just about whatever it wants. This on-screen version of Buzz Lightyear is what inspired the toy and this film was Andy’s favorite film.
Test pilot Buzz Lightyear (now voiced by Chris Evans) wakes up from hyper sleep to research and explore a nearby planet that is off the course of his ship’s destination. The mission results in Buzz’s entire crew being marooned on a planet overrun by giant insects and bothersome vines. With guilt weighing heavily on his shoulders, Buzz takes it upon himself to be the pilot responsible for hyper speed tests.
After spending a year on the planet, there’s finally enough resources for a test flight. But the mission fails and when Buzz returns, four years have passed. Intending to finish the mission despite the consequences, Buzz pilots test flight after test flight as each mission results in years passing while he’s away. He watches his friends age and die until he finally returns to a planet that now cowers to the ominous Zurg and his battalion of relentlessly inhuman robots.
After co-directing Finding Dory and while working as an animator for Pixar since 1998’s A Bug’s Life, Lightyear is the directorial debut of Angus MacLane. Written by MacLane, Matthew Aldrich (Coco), and Jason Headley (Onward), Lightyear is receiving a lot of backlash for including a same sex relationship as well as an on-screen lesbian kiss (some countries are refusing to release the film in theaters because of it). The relationship involves another Space Ranger named Alisha Hawthorne (Uzo Aduba, Orange is the New Black, Steven Universe). Hawthorne and the life she builds on a planet she is essentially stuck on ends up being the inspiration for not only Buzz, but as well as Alisha’s granddaughter, Izzy (Keke Palmer). Even if you’re against homosexuality, Alisha’s relationship is undeniably the most sentimental aspect of the film. Lightyear wouldn’t be the same without its inclusion.
The film does some different stuff with Zurg as far as who he is and how he relates to Buzz that may or may not retcon what was established in Toy Story 2. Both the story and the writing of the film seem to play it safe as they take a predictable approach to what essentially could have been something more unique. The discussion that’s been floating around about the film is that the jokes, sillier moments, and more absurd lines of dialogue seem to always disrupt the film whenever it tries to take a step towards being a thrilling sci-fi film. It’s difficult to argue with this statement, especially since Mo Morrison’s (Taika Waititi) whole purpose in the film is to broadcast his incompetence and the film revolves around a team of misfits attempting to save the planet despite their shortcomings.
The film is visually one of the year’s best looking films; animated or otherwise. Taking inspiration from early sci-fi films and space operas like Star Wars, Angus MacLane wanted Lightyear to look, “cinematic,” and, “chunky.” If you see the film in IMAX, this is the first animated film to ever have sequences shown in the 1.43:1 aspect ratio (it’s usually 2.39:1) as visual effects supervisor Jane Yen states that a virtual IMAX camera was developed to shoot said sequences, which were then cropped to standard definition. The film is gorgeous and even looks different in comparison to other Pixar films. With its lush colors, heavy use of shadows, bright lighting for highlights, and character designs for insects and robots that seem to be directly inspired by the likes of Starship Troopers and Gundam, Lightyear is a visually delicious treat.
Angus MacLane has his love for Star Wars showcased a bit too often in Lightyear as certain sequences seem to be directly lifted from the George Lucas created franchise. Many of Zurg’s scenes are a direct homage to various Darth Vader sequences in the Star Wars films. When Buzz is carried upside down by a Zyclops as Izzy and the others try to help him free borrows heavily from The Empire Strikes Back when Luke is hanging upside down in the icy Wampa cave; Buzz is even wearing an orange and white outfit that resembles Luke’s when he pilots the X-Wing. The love for Star Wars is as much a hindrance as it is an inspiration. The film spends more time referencing its origins rather than putting more of a focus on establishing its own identity.
Sox is legitimately the most fun character of the film. He’s humorous and resourceful; a robot cat that is Buzz’s most useful tool and companion. If Disney doesn’t resurrect Teddy Ruxpin technology for a new Sox animatronic toy then it will end up being wasted potential to a soul crushing extent.
Like Toy Story 4, Lightyear is an unnecessary installment to the Toy Story franchise, but is enjoyable nevertheless. Its homage to science fiction makes the animated film feel more like a sci-fi actioner rather than an animated film the majority of the time. It has a rich and palpable atmosphere that is gorgeously animated and is filled with the laugh out loud and heartfelt moments Pixar is typically known for.
Test pilot Buzz Lightyear (now voiced by Chris Evans) wakes up from hyper sleep to research and explore a nearby planet that is off the course of his ship’s destination. The mission results in Buzz’s entire crew being marooned on a planet overrun by giant insects and bothersome vines. With guilt weighing heavily on his shoulders, Buzz takes it upon himself to be the pilot responsible for hyper speed tests.
After spending a year on the planet, there’s finally enough resources for a test flight. But the mission fails and when Buzz returns, four years have passed. Intending to finish the mission despite the consequences, Buzz pilots test flight after test flight as each mission results in years passing while he’s away. He watches his friends age and die until he finally returns to a planet that now cowers to the ominous Zurg and his battalion of relentlessly inhuman robots.
After co-directing Finding Dory and while working as an animator for Pixar since 1998’s A Bug’s Life, Lightyear is the directorial debut of Angus MacLane. Written by MacLane, Matthew Aldrich (Coco), and Jason Headley (Onward), Lightyear is receiving a lot of backlash for including a same sex relationship as well as an on-screen lesbian kiss (some countries are refusing to release the film in theaters because of it). The relationship involves another Space Ranger named Alisha Hawthorne (Uzo Aduba, Orange is the New Black, Steven Universe). Hawthorne and the life she builds on a planet she is essentially stuck on ends up being the inspiration for not only Buzz, but as well as Alisha’s granddaughter, Izzy (Keke Palmer). Even if you’re against homosexuality, Alisha’s relationship is undeniably the most sentimental aspect of the film. Lightyear wouldn’t be the same without its inclusion.
The film does some different stuff with Zurg as far as who he is and how he relates to Buzz that may or may not retcon what was established in Toy Story 2. Both the story and the writing of the film seem to play it safe as they take a predictable approach to what essentially could have been something more unique. The discussion that’s been floating around about the film is that the jokes, sillier moments, and more absurd lines of dialogue seem to always disrupt the film whenever it tries to take a step towards being a thrilling sci-fi film. It’s difficult to argue with this statement, especially since Mo Morrison’s (Taika Waititi) whole purpose in the film is to broadcast his incompetence and the film revolves around a team of misfits attempting to save the planet despite their shortcomings.
The film is visually one of the year’s best looking films; animated or otherwise. Taking inspiration from early sci-fi films and space operas like Star Wars, Angus MacLane wanted Lightyear to look, “cinematic,” and, “chunky.” If you see the film in IMAX, this is the first animated film to ever have sequences shown in the 1.43:1 aspect ratio (it’s usually 2.39:1) as visual effects supervisor Jane Yen states that a virtual IMAX camera was developed to shoot said sequences, which were then cropped to standard definition. The film is gorgeous and even looks different in comparison to other Pixar films. With its lush colors, heavy use of shadows, bright lighting for highlights, and character designs for insects and robots that seem to be directly inspired by the likes of Starship Troopers and Gundam, Lightyear is a visually delicious treat.
Angus MacLane has his love for Star Wars showcased a bit too often in Lightyear as certain sequences seem to be directly lifted from the George Lucas created franchise. Many of Zurg’s scenes are a direct homage to various Darth Vader sequences in the Star Wars films. When Buzz is carried upside down by a Zyclops as Izzy and the others try to help him free borrows heavily from The Empire Strikes Back when Luke is hanging upside down in the icy Wampa cave; Buzz is even wearing an orange and white outfit that resembles Luke’s when he pilots the X-Wing. The love for Star Wars is as much a hindrance as it is an inspiration. The film spends more time referencing its origins rather than putting more of a focus on establishing its own identity.
Sox is legitimately the most fun character of the film. He’s humorous and resourceful; a robot cat that is Buzz’s most useful tool and companion. If Disney doesn’t resurrect Teddy Ruxpin technology for a new Sox animatronic toy then it will end up being wasted potential to a soul crushing extent.
Like Toy Story 4, Lightyear is an unnecessary installment to the Toy Story franchise, but is enjoyable nevertheless. Its homage to science fiction makes the animated film feel more like a sci-fi actioner rather than an animated film the majority of the time. It has a rich and palpable atmosphere that is gorgeously animated and is filled with the laugh out loud and heartfelt moments Pixar is typically known for.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….