Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
The final curtain.
So… thanks again to work and family commitments, I’ve spent 7 days dodging social media to arrive at my showing of “Endgame” spoiler free… and was successful in doing so! It is of course impossible to write just about anything on this film without dropping spoilers. So I will keep this first part of the review short, but add some footnotes (indexed with <#> symbols) to a “spoiler section” below the trailer video. Proceed at your peril if you haven’t yet seen it!
The Plot
The MCU has delivered an impressively well-connected movie series. In the case of Thanos, this is a story-arc that started in the mid-credit “monkey” at the end of 2012’s “The Avengers” and, at the conclusion of “Avengers: Infinity War”, saw half the universe’s population drift away – Voldemort-style – into grey ash. This, of course, also wiped out half of our heroes (good trivia question for future years: who was the first we saw drift away? Answer below* ). This included Spider-Man (Tom Holland); Dr Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch); Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman); Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson); half of the remaining Guardians; The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) and Dr Pym (Michael Douglas). Oblivious to all of this is Ant Man (Paul Rudd), still stranded in the ‘quantum realm’ following the demise of his colleagues, and with no one to flick the ‘return’ switch.
After some early action, Endgame’s story revolves around a desperate attempt by the remaining Avengers, led by Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and a ‘retired’ Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jnr) to undo the undoable. Can they succeed against all the odds? (With a new Spider-Man film due out in the summer, I’ll give you a guess!). Of more relevance perhaps is whether the team can stay unscathed from their encounter with the scheming and massively powerful Thanos (Josh Brolin)?
Thoughtful
The film will not be to every fan’s taste. After the virtually non-stop rip-roaring action of “Infinity War”, “Endgame” takes a far more contemplative approach to its first hour.
The film starts with a devastating prologue, and a great lesson in statistics: that you need a decent sized population to guarantee getting a 50:50 split! There is also a very surprising twist in the first 15 minutes or so that I didn’t see coming AT ALL.
But then things settle down into a far more sombre section of the film: short on action; long on character development. The world is grieving for its loss, unable to move on past the non-stop counselling sessions that everyone is getting. This first hour was, for me, by far, my favourite part of the film. Seeing how the characters we know and love have been impacted – some for better rather than for worse – was terrific. Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk (with a rather glib plot-point) takes on an hilarious new aspect; and Chris Hemsworth adds hugely comedic value as Thor, setting up in Scotland a “New Asgard” settlement in uncharacteristically laid-back fashion.
Cast
As an ensemble cast, everyone plays their parts extremely well. But it is just the breadth of the cast that astounds in this film: just about everyone who is anyone in the Marvel Universe – at least, those who are still alive (alive!) and not dead (dead!) – pop up for an appearance! This is great fun with, in one particular case, the opportunity to try some more rejuvenation of an old timer as previously done with Samuel L. Jackson in “Captain Marvel”.
Inevitably, some of these appearances are overly brief, and characters that I wanted to see developed more in this film (particularly Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel) get very little screen time. Drax (Dave Bautista) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff) barely get a single line each. So it will depend on where your loyalties lie as to whether you are satisfied with the coverage or not. (I personally find Chris Evans‘ Captain America a bit of a po-faced bore, so I wasn’t keen on the amount of screen time he had).
Stan Lee again gets another cameo in the bag before his demise: will this actually be his last live one?
Overall view
I enjoyed this movie. It could obviously NEVER live up to the over-hyped expectations of the fan base. But as a cinematic spectacle, for me, it delivered on its billing as a blockbuster finale, but one filled with a degree of nuance I was not expecting. The problem with the way that the plot have been structured (no spoilers – <#>) is that it is easy to pick holes in the storyline. Indeed, some dramatic options (that to me seemed obvious ones to ‘mine’) were left ‘unmined’ <##>; others were left inexplicably hanging <###>.
I suspect the reason for some of this is that the initial cut of this film probably ran to 5 hours rather than the – still bladder-testing – 3 hours as released. There were probably a bunch of scenes left on the cutting room floor that might allow things to make more sense in the extended BluRay release.
It’s at times slow, but for me never dull. It does suffer from one significant flaw though: the “Return of the King” disease. It doesn’t know when to quit. There was a natural MCU arc to follow and a perfect time at which to end it: but the directors (the Russo Brothers, Anthony Russo and Joe Russo) kept adding additional scenes that detracted from the natural ending <####>.
Above all, unlike I think all but one film in MCU history, there is NO “MONKEY” in the end credits: either mid-credit or end-credit! So, after the long title crawl (and some rather odd choices for end-title music by Alan Silvestri), if you are not to look bloody stupid as the lights come up, and face a storm of derision from your partner, then leave after the dramatic roll-call sequence of the film’s stars!
(*BTW, the answer to the trivia question is, I believe, Bucky.)
So… thanks again to work and family commitments, I’ve spent 7 days dodging social media to arrive at my showing of “Endgame” spoiler free… and was successful in doing so! It is of course impossible to write just about anything on this film without dropping spoilers. So I will keep this first part of the review short, but add some footnotes (indexed with <#> symbols) to a “spoiler section” below the trailer video. Proceed at your peril if you haven’t yet seen it!
The Plot
The MCU has delivered an impressively well-connected movie series. In the case of Thanos, this is a story-arc that started in the mid-credit “monkey” at the end of 2012’s “The Avengers” and, at the conclusion of “Avengers: Infinity War”, saw half the universe’s population drift away – Voldemort-style – into grey ash. This, of course, also wiped out half of our heroes (good trivia question for future years: who was the first we saw drift away? Answer below* ). This included Spider-Man (Tom Holland); Dr Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch); Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman); Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson); half of the remaining Guardians; The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) and Dr Pym (Michael Douglas). Oblivious to all of this is Ant Man (Paul Rudd), still stranded in the ‘quantum realm’ following the demise of his colleagues, and with no one to flick the ‘return’ switch.
After some early action, Endgame’s story revolves around a desperate attempt by the remaining Avengers, led by Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and a ‘retired’ Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jnr) to undo the undoable. Can they succeed against all the odds? (With a new Spider-Man film due out in the summer, I’ll give you a guess!). Of more relevance perhaps is whether the team can stay unscathed from their encounter with the scheming and massively powerful Thanos (Josh Brolin)?
Thoughtful
The film will not be to every fan’s taste. After the virtually non-stop rip-roaring action of “Infinity War”, “Endgame” takes a far more contemplative approach to its first hour.
The film starts with a devastating prologue, and a great lesson in statistics: that you need a decent sized population to guarantee getting a 50:50 split! There is also a very surprising twist in the first 15 minutes or so that I didn’t see coming AT ALL.
But then things settle down into a far more sombre section of the film: short on action; long on character development. The world is grieving for its loss, unable to move on past the non-stop counselling sessions that everyone is getting. This first hour was, for me, by far, my favourite part of the film. Seeing how the characters we know and love have been impacted – some for better rather than for worse – was terrific. Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk (with a rather glib plot-point) takes on an hilarious new aspect; and Chris Hemsworth adds hugely comedic value as Thor, setting up in Scotland a “New Asgard” settlement in uncharacteristically laid-back fashion.
Cast
As an ensemble cast, everyone plays their parts extremely well. But it is just the breadth of the cast that astounds in this film: just about everyone who is anyone in the Marvel Universe – at least, those who are still alive (alive!) and not dead (dead!) – pop up for an appearance! This is great fun with, in one particular case, the opportunity to try some more rejuvenation of an old timer as previously done with Samuel L. Jackson in “Captain Marvel”.
Inevitably, some of these appearances are overly brief, and characters that I wanted to see developed more in this film (particularly Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel) get very little screen time. Drax (Dave Bautista) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff) barely get a single line each. So it will depend on where your loyalties lie as to whether you are satisfied with the coverage or not. (I personally find Chris Evans‘ Captain America a bit of a po-faced bore, so I wasn’t keen on the amount of screen time he had).
Stan Lee again gets another cameo in the bag before his demise: will this actually be his last live one?
Overall view
I enjoyed this movie. It could obviously NEVER live up to the over-hyped expectations of the fan base. But as a cinematic spectacle, for me, it delivered on its billing as a blockbuster finale, but one filled with a degree of nuance I was not expecting. The problem with the way that the plot have been structured (no spoilers – <#>) is that it is easy to pick holes in the storyline. Indeed, some dramatic options (that to me seemed obvious ones to ‘mine’) were left ‘unmined’ <##>; others were left inexplicably hanging <###>.
I suspect the reason for some of this is that the initial cut of this film probably ran to 5 hours rather than the – still bladder-testing – 3 hours as released. There were probably a bunch of scenes left on the cutting room floor that might allow things to make more sense in the extended BluRay release.
It’s at times slow, but for me never dull. It does suffer from one significant flaw though: the “Return of the King” disease. It doesn’t know when to quit. There was a natural MCU arc to follow and a perfect time at which to end it: but the directors (the Russo Brothers, Anthony Russo and Joe Russo) kept adding additional scenes that detracted from the natural ending <####>.
Above all, unlike I think all but one film in MCU history, there is NO “MONKEY” in the end credits: either mid-credit or end-credit! So, after the long title crawl (and some rather odd choices for end-title music by Alan Silvestri), if you are not to look bloody stupid as the lights come up, and face a storm of derision from your partner, then leave after the dramatic roll-call sequence of the film’s stars!
(*BTW, the answer to the trivia question is, I believe, Bucky.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2020
It has felt like a long wait to get to this film, there was a lot of talk when Midway was coming out so I was very glad it finally arrived.
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
A Bibliophagist (113 KP) rated Throne of Glass in Books
Feb 5, 2020 (Updated Feb 5, 2020)
Good start (2 more)
Good finish
Intial character introductions
Formulaic (1 more)
Celeana never does anything she says she can do
Something special ruined by the YA formula
This is another tough one to review, primarily because it started so good for me, then just ended as a whimper.
First of all, this was one of my "force myself out of my norm" picks. I forced myself to pick two popular books, that didn't interest me, and give them a chance. This was the biggest "no interest" pick. The cover alone is just so bad I was embarrassed to be buying it at the bookstore by the art school I work at. What if one of my Illustration students see, will I be deemed unworthy to teach them if I buy a book so ugly and anatomically incorrect? Like seriously, why is her torso so long. Is she just insanely tall? Is she hunched or does she have no neck? It's just... awful.
Also, it's a genre I don't gel well with, fantasy just isn't my jam, I get so mad that SciFi is always lumped in with Fantasy. So, the perfect choice I suppose.
When I first started, I texted my partner and told him "holy crap, I actually am enjoying this". I was shocked, surprised. So far the YA darling of a book wasn't stereotypically YA. The main character was deep and interesting and had a thick backstory. Yea they've already introduced two perfectly perfect love interested for her, but whatever, this is actually interesting.
The book follows the acclaimed assassin, Calaena, young, utterly gorgeous and snarky, deadly. In theory a textbook YA heroine. But she is far from a Mary Sue (in the beginning) her backstory is interesting and rich. She's hardened by a year in prison death labor camp. A camp she is offered freedom from if she accepts the Prince's offer; his father wants a "champion" (aka a dubious person to assassinate and otherwise do his dirty work) and she is the Prince's pick. Should she accept, she'll go against other noble's picks and participate in a competition proving their worth. The winner gets freedom and serves as the champion for X amount of years. Losers go back to whatever prison or hole they crawled out of. So while Celeana doesn't much want to be a lackey to some Princeling or King, she doesn't want to go back to the death labor camp either.
So if you can't tell already, enter love interest #1, the sassy, broody Prince Dorian. Perfect in all ways, except for birthright. Could someone like Celeana ever love him? Dun Dun DUnnnnn. Also enter love interest 2, captain of the guard Chaol, the prince's childhood friend, quiet, introverted, job-focused. Doesn't trust her at all, but could she break him down? What will happen if two best friends fall for the same saucy assassin? DUN DUN DUNNNN
So obviously, she accepts, and is taken to the great glass palace to await the competition, where we have a veritable Beauty and the Beast situation, she's provided lavish accommodation, beautiful dresses, and sadly starts to become a Mary Sue. But not quite yet, first, we get some actually really interesting story, hints at the world we're in, going through a once magical forest, with something in the night leaving flowers at the foot of Celeana's bed, hinting at perhaps her lineage being more magical than we think. We also get introduced to the competition, a lineup of stereotypical gruff dudes, with the bad guy being so obvious he might as well as a spotlight on him (unfortunately this book doesn't really have a twist). Also, enter love interest 3? I utilize the question mark because this one isn't really persued, but feels like it's meant to be something. A handsome, young, way too nice unsavory that she aligns herself with. No one knows who she is, and she goes under a pseudonym while in the palace, hoping to make people underestimate her. The first parts of the competition are interesting, the book is actually conscious of how out of shape she'd be, and takes pains to be detailed (sometimes overly detailed, like the page about her period, I'm in no means ashamed of my period, but the page literally did nothing but further the stereotype that we are completely immobile and need a day off while on it. I wish the author impowered Celeana by having her be in pain, but still be a badass).
As the competition progresses, however, competitors begin dying in gruesome ways, that aren't related to the competition. Concern rises, and whispers of the old magic are everywhere. Celeana now needs to survive this competition, survive whatever is killing her competitors, and solve the mystery happening in the castle. Oh and of course, figure out how to go to that ball and which boy she wants.
Unfortunately, after the first competition-related thing, this book started going downhill for me. Gone was this interest main character, and replaced was a stereotypical Mary Sue that forgets she's an assassin a lot. She rarely does anything Assasin like actually, beyond some internal dialogue in which she thinks about assasin things. It goes from describing the competition to suddenly being like "there were two more trials, Celeana rocked them" skipping ahead a glossing over the competition entirely, choosing instead to focus on the growing tension between her and the two boys, and dangling the very obvious bad guy in front of us as if we're going to be ever so surprised when we find out it's exactly who we thought it was. I want those trials, I want to know what happened and see her thoughts, something to remind me she's an assassin and not a giggling school girl more than ready for court life. Having stereotypical scenes of playing Billiards and Dorian holding her to show her how to do it. Don't even get me started on the Billiards, a fantasy book, using freak in billiards, make up a game for goodness sake, but to utilize a surprisingly modern game in a high fantasy setting made me laugh out loud for the wrong reasons. She gets a puppy, that hates everyone but her, befriends a badass princess (the most interesting thing in this book) and fights off some baddies. Too bad most of the focus was on the rushed, completely chemistry-free relationship between her and Dorian, they see each other like 4 times and are willing to give everything up for each other, it's painful. Honestly, even when I let my mind lapse into YA mode and allow myself to enjoy a fun YA romance, this is not how to do it. Also, Team Chaol all the way.
So the competition takes a considerable step back, and so does my interest. I would argue that the concept in this story is solid and interesting, but executed poorly, which is odd because the beginning proves to be the author can write well, it just feels like she second-guessed herself and decided to stop doing an actually interesting story and instead focus on being stereotypically YA. But there are little gems in here, an interesting world is hinted at, likable and interesting characters are glimpsed in the beginning before she lost interest in developing them. An undercurrent of well thought out mystery and magic. But all of these things took a backseat to fulfil the YA formula instead. I'm going to read the next book just to see if this world becomes more of the focus, but if it doesn't I'll have to stop, this series is just way too long to deal with the same formula over and over.
She almost got me, she was so close, I just wish this book had been consistent and focused on the plot. I wish she had let Celeana be the strong character she implied in the beginning rather than a stereotypical YA girl. I get she was fulfilling the life she never had, but in a situation where she needed to really be HER to get her freedom, it just doesn't feel like the appropriate time for wish fulfillment I wish, if there had to be romance, it had more oomf, made me feel things, made me care. Unfortunately, it didn't have these things, so this book was a bit of a flop for me. So I'm hoping, she'll prove me wrong in the second one, and let the story I see she's made and spent loving time on shine, rather than hide it underneath the guaranteed to sell formula plaguing young adult books.
First of all, this was one of my "force myself out of my norm" picks. I forced myself to pick two popular books, that didn't interest me, and give them a chance. This was the biggest "no interest" pick. The cover alone is just so bad I was embarrassed to be buying it at the bookstore by the art school I work at. What if one of my Illustration students see, will I be deemed unworthy to teach them if I buy a book so ugly and anatomically incorrect? Like seriously, why is her torso so long. Is she just insanely tall? Is she hunched or does she have no neck? It's just... awful.
Also, it's a genre I don't gel well with, fantasy just isn't my jam, I get so mad that SciFi is always lumped in with Fantasy. So, the perfect choice I suppose.
When I first started, I texted my partner and told him "holy crap, I actually am enjoying this". I was shocked, surprised. So far the YA darling of a book wasn't stereotypically YA. The main character was deep and interesting and had a thick backstory. Yea they've already introduced two perfectly perfect love interested for her, but whatever, this is actually interesting.
The book follows the acclaimed assassin, Calaena, young, utterly gorgeous and snarky, deadly. In theory a textbook YA heroine. But she is far from a Mary Sue (in the beginning) her backstory is interesting and rich. She's hardened by a year in prison death labor camp. A camp she is offered freedom from if she accepts the Prince's offer; his father wants a "champion" (aka a dubious person to assassinate and otherwise do his dirty work) and she is the Prince's pick. Should she accept, she'll go against other noble's picks and participate in a competition proving their worth. The winner gets freedom and serves as the champion for X amount of years. Losers go back to whatever prison or hole they crawled out of. So while Celeana doesn't much want to be a lackey to some Princeling or King, she doesn't want to go back to the death labor camp either.
So if you can't tell already, enter love interest #1, the sassy, broody Prince Dorian. Perfect in all ways, except for birthright. Could someone like Celeana ever love him? Dun Dun DUnnnnn. Also enter love interest 2, captain of the guard Chaol, the prince's childhood friend, quiet, introverted, job-focused. Doesn't trust her at all, but could she break him down? What will happen if two best friends fall for the same saucy assassin? DUN DUN DUNNNN
So obviously, she accepts, and is taken to the great glass palace to await the competition, where we have a veritable Beauty and the Beast situation, she's provided lavish accommodation, beautiful dresses, and sadly starts to become a Mary Sue. But not quite yet, first, we get some actually really interesting story, hints at the world we're in, going through a once magical forest, with something in the night leaving flowers at the foot of Celeana's bed, hinting at perhaps her lineage being more magical than we think. We also get introduced to the competition, a lineup of stereotypical gruff dudes, with the bad guy being so obvious he might as well as a spotlight on him (unfortunately this book doesn't really have a twist). Also, enter love interest 3? I utilize the question mark because this one isn't really persued, but feels like it's meant to be something. A handsome, young, way too nice unsavory that she aligns herself with. No one knows who she is, and she goes under a pseudonym while in the palace, hoping to make people underestimate her. The first parts of the competition are interesting, the book is actually conscious of how out of shape she'd be, and takes pains to be detailed (sometimes overly detailed, like the page about her period, I'm in no means ashamed of my period, but the page literally did nothing but further the stereotype that we are completely immobile and need a day off while on it. I wish the author impowered Celeana by having her be in pain, but still be a badass).
As the competition progresses, however, competitors begin dying in gruesome ways, that aren't related to the competition. Concern rises, and whispers of the old magic are everywhere. Celeana now needs to survive this competition, survive whatever is killing her competitors, and solve the mystery happening in the castle. Oh and of course, figure out how to go to that ball and which boy she wants.
Unfortunately, after the first competition-related thing, this book started going downhill for me. Gone was this interest main character, and replaced was a stereotypical Mary Sue that forgets she's an assassin a lot. She rarely does anything Assasin like actually, beyond some internal dialogue in which she thinks about assasin things. It goes from describing the competition to suddenly being like "there were two more trials, Celeana rocked them" skipping ahead a glossing over the competition entirely, choosing instead to focus on the growing tension between her and the two boys, and dangling the very obvious bad guy in front of us as if we're going to be ever so surprised when we find out it's exactly who we thought it was. I want those trials, I want to know what happened and see her thoughts, something to remind me she's an assassin and not a giggling school girl more than ready for court life. Having stereotypical scenes of playing Billiards and Dorian holding her to show her how to do it. Don't even get me started on the Billiards, a fantasy book, using freak in billiards, make up a game for goodness sake, but to utilize a surprisingly modern game in a high fantasy setting made me laugh out loud for the wrong reasons. She gets a puppy, that hates everyone but her, befriends a badass princess (the most interesting thing in this book) and fights off some baddies. Too bad most of the focus was on the rushed, completely chemistry-free relationship between her and Dorian, they see each other like 4 times and are willing to give everything up for each other, it's painful. Honestly, even when I let my mind lapse into YA mode and allow myself to enjoy a fun YA romance, this is not how to do it. Also, Team Chaol all the way.
So the competition takes a considerable step back, and so does my interest. I would argue that the concept in this story is solid and interesting, but executed poorly, which is odd because the beginning proves to be the author can write well, it just feels like she second-guessed herself and decided to stop doing an actually interesting story and instead focus on being stereotypically YA. But there are little gems in here, an interesting world is hinted at, likable and interesting characters are glimpsed in the beginning before she lost interest in developing them. An undercurrent of well thought out mystery and magic. But all of these things took a backseat to fulfil the YA formula instead. I'm going to read the next book just to see if this world becomes more of the focus, but if it doesn't I'll have to stop, this series is just way too long to deal with the same formula over and over.
She almost got me, she was so close, I just wish this book had been consistent and focused on the plot. I wish she had let Celeana be the strong character she implied in the beginning rather than a stereotypical YA girl. I get she was fulfilling the life she never had, but in a situation where she needed to really be HER to get her freedom, it just doesn't feel like the appropriate time for wish fulfillment I wish, if there had to be romance, it had more oomf, made me feel things, made me care. Unfortunately, it didn't have these things, so this book was a bit of a flop for me. So I'm hoping, she'll prove me wrong in the second one, and let the story I see she's made and spent loving time on shine, rather than hide it underneath the guaranteed to sell formula plaguing young adult books.
Sarah (7798 KP) Feb 23, 2020