Search
Search results
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018
Apes...together...strong!
The recent revival of the Apes franchise has managed to defy all expectations by not only being a worthy entry into the franchise, but also being strong films on their own merit. Working as a kind-of-prequel-reboot of the old franchise, and ignoring the Tim Burton film completely, it is strange to realise this is only the third film since the reboot. Lesser franchises would have churned out one every year or two, and be up to part five by now, but not the Apes films. It genuinely feels like they are taking time to ensure each film is worthy. Which is where another expectation is defied – the films don’t seem to diminish in quality, nor feel repetitive. Each entry so far has had its own feel and worked to move the story along. War for the Planet of the Apes is no exception, and is one of the finest blockbuster films of this year.
It has been 15 years since the events of the first film, and the release of the Simian Flu virus that wiped out a large percentage of humanity. The events of the second film saw the start of conflict between the apes and humans, instigated by Koba who defied Caesar’s leadership. Now, humanity are hunting down the apes, with one Colonel (Woody Harrelson) in particular striving to wipe them out entirely. When that Colonel attacks Caesar’s tribe, killing those close to him, it sets the ape leader off on a personal revenge journey, with only a few of his most loyal followers supporting him on the way. However, along the way they encounter two new recruits, an ape hermit who has also developed speech, and a young human girl who is showing signs of a new strain of the Simian virus.
It is a testament to the motion captured performances and the quality of the CGI on offer that at no point during the film do you not believe that the apes on screen are real. There’s a line in the film where Harrelson’s Colonel comments on how human looking Caesar’s eyes are, and whilst you could see that in the context of the film series’ arc (apes are becoming the new rulers, usurping humanity, and so are becoming more human), you can also see it as a nod to how the ‘uncanny valley’ dead-eye stare that plagues CGI in film is entirely absent here. Indeed, given that every scene in this relatively moderate $150million budget film is an effect shot, as apes are present throughout, it is jaw dropping that it looks a far more polished film than, for example, the $265million budgeted Rogue One – a film which tried desperately with two key CGI characters and failed so hard in the brief screen time they had. Over all the Apes series has impressed with the effects work, but here it is pretty much flawless.
But it isn’t all about the effects. In fact the action-packed film the trailers seemed to hint at is instead a thoughtful, character-driven revenge journey, with only short bursts of action. This is Caesar’s dark-journey of the soul, the end result of his attempts to live a peaceful co-existence with a humanity that fears him and his kind. Many comparisons can be drawn to films such as Apocalypse Now (something the film is aware of and manages to drop a reference to as a result), where a troubled individual, tired of war, seeks a crazed Colonel who is amassing his own army for an unknown purpose. The two core leads in their respective roles give their all. Serkis acting to a high degree, and giving genuine life to Caesar, and Harrelson gone completely Brando in his part, menacing without being overbearing.
The journey itself is a compelling story, and the support characters, some who we already know (Maurice, Luca and Rocket) acting as the conscience and the advisers to the troubled Caesar. The new additions, Amiah Miller’s war orphan who Maurice adopts on their journey, and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) offer heart and comic relief respectively. The comic timing is perfectly placed, never feeling forced, and being deftly used to offer a glimmer of hope and joy in what is otherwise a very dark tale.
The film, overall, nicely rounds out the trilogy, whilst still leaving room for future films down the line. Matt Reeves’ direction makes effective use of his cast and settings, whilst the score by Michael Giacchino has grown more ‘ape-inspired’ since he scored the previous film, reflecting in its drums and pipes the more primate nature manner the world is taking as technology and humanity dwindles.
“Apes together strong!” is Caesar’s mantra. Indeed, all three Apes films, when viewed together, can be seen as one impressive, strong story, with a genuine progression throughout. A third film in a franchise usually derails and loses the way. Not here as this is one of the finest examples of intelligent blockbuster that you will find.
It has been 15 years since the events of the first film, and the release of the Simian Flu virus that wiped out a large percentage of humanity. The events of the second film saw the start of conflict between the apes and humans, instigated by Koba who defied Caesar’s leadership. Now, humanity are hunting down the apes, with one Colonel (Woody Harrelson) in particular striving to wipe them out entirely. When that Colonel attacks Caesar’s tribe, killing those close to him, it sets the ape leader off on a personal revenge journey, with only a few of his most loyal followers supporting him on the way. However, along the way they encounter two new recruits, an ape hermit who has also developed speech, and a young human girl who is showing signs of a new strain of the Simian virus.
It is a testament to the motion captured performances and the quality of the CGI on offer that at no point during the film do you not believe that the apes on screen are real. There’s a line in the film where Harrelson’s Colonel comments on how human looking Caesar’s eyes are, and whilst you could see that in the context of the film series’ arc (apes are becoming the new rulers, usurping humanity, and so are becoming more human), you can also see it as a nod to how the ‘uncanny valley’ dead-eye stare that plagues CGI in film is entirely absent here. Indeed, given that every scene in this relatively moderate $150million budget film is an effect shot, as apes are present throughout, it is jaw dropping that it looks a far more polished film than, for example, the $265million budgeted Rogue One – a film which tried desperately with two key CGI characters and failed so hard in the brief screen time they had. Over all the Apes series has impressed with the effects work, but here it is pretty much flawless.
But it isn’t all about the effects. In fact the action-packed film the trailers seemed to hint at is instead a thoughtful, character-driven revenge journey, with only short bursts of action. This is Caesar’s dark-journey of the soul, the end result of his attempts to live a peaceful co-existence with a humanity that fears him and his kind. Many comparisons can be drawn to films such as Apocalypse Now (something the film is aware of and manages to drop a reference to as a result), where a troubled individual, tired of war, seeks a crazed Colonel who is amassing his own army for an unknown purpose. The two core leads in their respective roles give their all. Serkis acting to a high degree, and giving genuine life to Caesar, and Harrelson gone completely Brando in his part, menacing without being overbearing.
The journey itself is a compelling story, and the support characters, some who we already know (Maurice, Luca and Rocket) acting as the conscience and the advisers to the troubled Caesar. The new additions, Amiah Miller’s war orphan who Maurice adopts on their journey, and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) offer heart and comic relief respectively. The comic timing is perfectly placed, never feeling forced, and being deftly used to offer a glimmer of hope and joy in what is otherwise a very dark tale.
The film, overall, nicely rounds out the trilogy, whilst still leaving room for future films down the line. Matt Reeves’ direction makes effective use of his cast and settings, whilst the score by Michael Giacchino has grown more ‘ape-inspired’ since he scored the previous film, reflecting in its drums and pipes the more primate nature manner the world is taking as technology and humanity dwindles.
“Apes together strong!” is Caesar’s mantra. Indeed, all three Apes films, when viewed together, can be seen as one impressive, strong story, with a genuine progression throughout. A third film in a franchise usually derails and loses the way. Not here as this is one of the finest examples of intelligent blockbuster that you will find.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019 (Updated Feb 25, 2019)
Groundbreaker mired in slop
Contains spoilers, click to show
Regarded as one of the best war films ever made, it certainly qualifies. The opening twenty minutes are still as breathtaking, shocking and disturbing realistic as they were back in 1998. It is hard to imagine that it has now been over twelve years since Saving Private Ryan broke the mold of World War II film making.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
May 9, 2019 (Updated May 26, 2019)
"Oh, I'm not gonna kill you... I'm just gonna hurt you really, really bad."
Suicide Squad, aka Suicide Squandered, was one of my most anticipated movies of 2016. It would bring back to the big screen one of the most iconic comic book characters, Mr. J, and Harley Quinn would make her long awaited movie debut. It also promised to offer a different approach on the superhero genre, as it would star the villains instead of the good guys.
However, the movie delivers much less than what it teases. It begins on a high note, by introducing some characters in a fun, energetic and fast-paced way, in spite of the messy editing that makes these segments look like mini trailers. It goes downhill from there, showing only a couple of scenes more that could justify all the love these superhero movies get. Ultimately, what distinguishes these sequences from the mediocre ones are the characters in them and whether the audience cares for them or not.
Displaying some information on the screen about certain characters or telling their backstory doesn't necessarily contribute to their development, nor to the knowledge the viewer has about them. Therefore, it's impossible to care about all the characters and only those who are played by the (more) famous actors have any meaning to the audience.
Will Smith's Deadshot is the best of the bunch. Smith has this unique ability to deliver comedic lines that many comedians wish they had. His charisma drives most of the movie and so does his character's motivation. Right now, he could be the only character capable of leading a franchise of his own. Deadshot ended up establishing a mildly interesting dynamic with Joel Kinnaman's forgettable Rick Flag.
Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn is the other character we end up caring about. Robbie provides a fantastic performance and hits all the right notes. Her amazing backstory is only slightly explored and it has potential for a future psychological thriller movie. With the right script and direction, it could be an incredible film. People have already talked about her body and I can only add that she could possibly be right below Kate Hudson's Penny Lane on the sexiest female movie characters. She could.
I love all sorts of crazy and psychotic performances on screen. In fact, one of my favourites is Gary Oldman's in Leon. Jared Leto delivers another one of those performances. It's truly stellar, I loved his interpretation of the Joker and I believe Leto can still receive high praise for his extraordinary efforts. It could happen in the form of that Batman movie, by Matt Reeves.
Just to conclude my thought on the performances, I would like to add that Viola Davis is an excellent Amanda Waller, even more menacing that Cara Delevingne's witch, more on that later. Jai Courtney was great , he got all the best jokes. Jay Hernandez sounds a lot like Jon Bernthal's Frank Castle, doesn't he? His Diablo is the best character, out of the less interesting ones. I love Katana from CW's Arrow and it was disappointing to see that the screenwriters didn't care about her, even more so because Karen Fukuhara seems perfect for the role. Killer Croc has the best entrance on water ever.
A movie is as good as its villain, right? Indeed. Cara Delevingne's Enchantress could very well be the worst movie villain ever. Malekith is relegated to second place. Honestly, I don't know who's to blame. Sure, Delevingne's acting isn't top-notch, but the screenwriters made her dance (?) in a weird way and her voice is laughable. The final result is ridiculous and by far the worst aspect of the movie.
While Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was a dark film and proud to 'own that shit', Suicide Squad is ashamed to exhibit that dark side, which results in confusing tone shifts. One moment, it's clearly a DC movie, and another, it is a Marvel family friendly one. Therefore, the comedy sometimes doesn't land, at all. Besides, I also didn't find anything special about the way the action was shot. It was generic stuff, mostly.
Suicide Squad is a huge waste of potential, that could have benefited from some character development and sharp editing. Its greatest strenght is undoubtedly the work done by the talented cast. Could a different cut fix some of these issues? Probably, yes. I was going to attribute 6 stars to this, but a second watch didn't help, either. By the way, what was your favourite sequence? Spoiler alert: mine was the one in which Joker jumps into the acid to Harley.
However, the movie delivers much less than what it teases. It begins on a high note, by introducing some characters in a fun, energetic and fast-paced way, in spite of the messy editing that makes these segments look like mini trailers. It goes downhill from there, showing only a couple of scenes more that could justify all the love these superhero movies get. Ultimately, what distinguishes these sequences from the mediocre ones are the characters in them and whether the audience cares for them or not.
Displaying some information on the screen about certain characters or telling their backstory doesn't necessarily contribute to their development, nor to the knowledge the viewer has about them. Therefore, it's impossible to care about all the characters and only those who are played by the (more) famous actors have any meaning to the audience.
Will Smith's Deadshot is the best of the bunch. Smith has this unique ability to deliver comedic lines that many comedians wish they had. His charisma drives most of the movie and so does his character's motivation. Right now, he could be the only character capable of leading a franchise of his own. Deadshot ended up establishing a mildly interesting dynamic with Joel Kinnaman's forgettable Rick Flag.
Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn is the other character we end up caring about. Robbie provides a fantastic performance and hits all the right notes. Her amazing backstory is only slightly explored and it has potential for a future psychological thriller movie. With the right script and direction, it could be an incredible film. People have already talked about her body and I can only add that she could possibly be right below Kate Hudson's Penny Lane on the sexiest female movie characters. She could.
I love all sorts of crazy and psychotic performances on screen. In fact, one of my favourites is Gary Oldman's in Leon. Jared Leto delivers another one of those performances. It's truly stellar, I loved his interpretation of the Joker and I believe Leto can still receive high praise for his extraordinary efforts. It could happen in the form of that Batman movie, by Matt Reeves.
Just to conclude my thought on the performances, I would like to add that Viola Davis is an excellent Amanda Waller, even more menacing that Cara Delevingne's witch, more on that later. Jai Courtney was great , he got all the best jokes. Jay Hernandez sounds a lot like Jon Bernthal's Frank Castle, doesn't he? His Diablo is the best character, out of the less interesting ones. I love Katana from CW's Arrow and it was disappointing to see that the screenwriters didn't care about her, even more so because Karen Fukuhara seems perfect for the role. Killer Croc has the best entrance on water ever.
A movie is as good as its villain, right? Indeed. Cara Delevingne's Enchantress could very well be the worst movie villain ever. Malekith is relegated to second place. Honestly, I don't know who's to blame. Sure, Delevingne's acting isn't top-notch, but the screenwriters made her dance (?) in a weird way and her voice is laughable. The final result is ridiculous and by far the worst aspect of the movie.
While Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was a dark film and proud to 'own that shit', Suicide Squad is ashamed to exhibit that dark side, which results in confusing tone shifts. One moment, it's clearly a DC movie, and another, it is a Marvel family friendly one. Therefore, the comedy sometimes doesn't land, at all. Besides, I also didn't find anything special about the way the action was shot. It was generic stuff, mostly.
Suicide Squad is a huge waste of potential, that could have benefited from some character development and sharp editing. Its greatest strenght is undoubtedly the work done by the talented cast. Could a different cut fix some of these issues? Probably, yes. I was going to attribute 6 stars to this, but a second watch didn't help, either. By the way, what was your favourite sequence? Spoiler alert: mine was the one in which Joker jumps into the acid to Harley.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 5, 2019 (Updated Nov 5, 2019)
Anyone who knows me knows that I have pretty much zero interest in cars. As long as they can get me from A to B, reliably and comfortably, then that's good enough for me. I have even less interest in watching cars race round and round and round at high speeds for hours on end too - if I wanted to watch that, then I'd just go and stand on a bridge overlooking the M25 for a while. So, a movie about a determined team of American engineers and designers looking to build a Ford racing car with the potential to finally beat Ferrari in the 1966 Le Mans race in France? Well, that doesn't immediately sound like my kind of movie. But, a great looking trailer and an interesting cast got me interested, and in the end I am so glad that I saw it.
Le Mans ‘66 (or Ford v Ferrari as it is known elsewhere - much better name, no idea why it needed to be changed) stars Matt Damon and Christian Bale (once again going through some weight loss for a movie role) as Carroll Shelby and his engineering partner Ken Miles. Shelby was the first American to win Le Mans, the 24 hour race held in France, in 1959, but has since retired from racing due to a heart condition. These days, Shelby designs and sells souped-up cars as well as running the racing team Cobra, along with British racing driver Ken Miles. Shelby is calm, very clever and extremely determined and Miles knows everything there is to know about cars, but isn’t exactly what you might call a good ‘people person’. Together they have a wonderful friendship and partnership, the highs and lows of which form the basis and heart of the movie.
Meanwhile, Ford Motor company is suffering from poor sales and Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is looking to his workforce to come up with the next big idea in order to try and boost the Ford name. One of the many corporate suits we see during the movie, Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) proposes that Ford buy into Ferrari in order to create a winning sports car that will make Ford cool again with the kids, so they head to Italy for a meeting with Enzo Ferrari. The meeting doesn't really go according to plan though, and the suits return home with their tails between their legs, and a strong desire to go to war with Ferrari and teach them a lesson.
Ford puts its money where its mouth is, pretty much writing a blank cheque for Shelby to come up with a car worthy enough to defeat Ferrari and win Le Mans ‘66, and we then follow Shelby, Miles and their team as they struggle to make it happen. Problems arise when Shelby is repeatedly put under pressure by the corporate suits at Ford to ditch Miles, feeling that he doesn’t quite fit with the Ford image, and this puts strain on both the project and the friendship between Shelby and Miles, eventually resulting in a comedy brawl reminiscent of the one involving Hugh Grant and Colin Firth in Bridget Jones Diary!.
Caitriona Balfe plays Miles' wife, Mollie, and it’s great to finally see her out of period costume and outside of TV show Outlander. It’s a role that could easily have been relegated to the usual, long-suffering spouse, sitting at home watching hubby race with baited breath, and while there is a fair bit of that, she does prove to be a strong and worthy addition to the cast. As does Josh Lucas, one of the dastardly, clueless suits who thinks he knows best. It’s a fantastic, jam-packed cast, but never detracting from the central Shelby/Miles friendship and dynamic.
I’ve come this far without talking about the race itself. There are a number of enjoyable, smaller races throughout the movie, giving us a taste of the high energy, intense camerawork to come, but that’s nothing compared to the 24 hours of racing we get when the team eventually arrive in France. As Shelby and his team look on in the pits, watched over in the stands above by the suits from Ford, and by team Ferrari in the stand next to them, Miles takes it in turns with other drivers to try and win the race, through the night and in heavy rain, dealing with car problems already experienced and worked upon throughout the movie, as well as yet more meddling from those pesky suits.
The pacing of the race is perfect. Putting you right in the heart of the action, occasionally cutting to the drama in the pits and between the team, all the while desperate to get one over on the all powerful Ferrari. This is a movie that can be enjoyed by petrol heads, and non enthusiasts like me, in equal measure, and I had an absolute blast watching it. Highly recommended.
Le Mans ‘66 (or Ford v Ferrari as it is known elsewhere - much better name, no idea why it needed to be changed) stars Matt Damon and Christian Bale (once again going through some weight loss for a movie role) as Carroll Shelby and his engineering partner Ken Miles. Shelby was the first American to win Le Mans, the 24 hour race held in France, in 1959, but has since retired from racing due to a heart condition. These days, Shelby designs and sells souped-up cars as well as running the racing team Cobra, along with British racing driver Ken Miles. Shelby is calm, very clever and extremely determined and Miles knows everything there is to know about cars, but isn’t exactly what you might call a good ‘people person’. Together they have a wonderful friendship and partnership, the highs and lows of which form the basis and heart of the movie.
Meanwhile, Ford Motor company is suffering from poor sales and Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is looking to his workforce to come up with the next big idea in order to try and boost the Ford name. One of the many corporate suits we see during the movie, Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) proposes that Ford buy into Ferrari in order to create a winning sports car that will make Ford cool again with the kids, so they head to Italy for a meeting with Enzo Ferrari. The meeting doesn't really go according to plan though, and the suits return home with their tails between their legs, and a strong desire to go to war with Ferrari and teach them a lesson.
Ford puts its money where its mouth is, pretty much writing a blank cheque for Shelby to come up with a car worthy enough to defeat Ferrari and win Le Mans ‘66, and we then follow Shelby, Miles and their team as they struggle to make it happen. Problems arise when Shelby is repeatedly put under pressure by the corporate suits at Ford to ditch Miles, feeling that he doesn’t quite fit with the Ford image, and this puts strain on both the project and the friendship between Shelby and Miles, eventually resulting in a comedy brawl reminiscent of the one involving Hugh Grant and Colin Firth in Bridget Jones Diary!.
Caitriona Balfe plays Miles' wife, Mollie, and it’s great to finally see her out of period costume and outside of TV show Outlander. It’s a role that could easily have been relegated to the usual, long-suffering spouse, sitting at home watching hubby race with baited breath, and while there is a fair bit of that, she does prove to be a strong and worthy addition to the cast. As does Josh Lucas, one of the dastardly, clueless suits who thinks he knows best. It’s a fantastic, jam-packed cast, but never detracting from the central Shelby/Miles friendship and dynamic.
I’ve come this far without talking about the race itself. There are a number of enjoyable, smaller races throughout the movie, giving us a taste of the high energy, intense camerawork to come, but that’s nothing compared to the 24 hours of racing we get when the team eventually arrive in France. As Shelby and his team look on in the pits, watched over in the stands above by the suits from Ford, and by team Ferrari in the stand next to them, Miles takes it in turns with other drivers to try and win the race, through the night and in heavy rain, dealing with car problems already experienced and worked upon throughout the movie, as well as yet more meddling from those pesky suits.
The pacing of the race is perfect. Putting you right in the heart of the action, occasionally cutting to the drama in the pits and between the team, all the while desperate to get one over on the all powerful Ferrari. This is a movie that can be enjoyed by petrol heads, and non enthusiasts like me, in equal measure, and I had an absolute blast watching it. Highly recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Gunman (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have an action film on deck for you and ‘no’ it doesn’t star Matt Damon or Jason Statham. This latest film ‘The Gunman’ stars none other than Sean Penn?! Yes, Sean Penn has decided to step into the action genre in his latest film.
Starring Sean Penn, Javier Bardem, Idris Elba, Jasmine Trinca, Ray Winstone, Peter Franzén, Mark Rylance, and based upon the 1981 book ‘The Prone Gunman’ by Jean-Patrick Manchette
‘The Gunman’ is set in the chaos that is modern Africa where civil unrest and war are day-to-day occurrences and western countries and multi-national conglomerates fight for control of the continent’s vital resources. Within this backdrop we find the character of Jim “Twink” Terrier (Penn). A corporate mercenary AKA security contractor on his last ‘assignment’ forced to leave
behind the woman he loves after going into hiding once his final assignment is complete. Now, years later after he has returned in secret to Africa he is forced go on the hunt again after nearly being killed and confront his former boss Felix (Bardem) who may or may not hold the key to finding those responsible. As in the world of espionage however, no one can be trusted. With corporate interests, international law enforcement, and his deteriorating health Terrier is racing against the clock to ensure that the world knows the whole story and perhaps find his long lost love before it’s too late.
Penn is obviously known for his dramatic roles. To say he is ‘legendary’ is pretty accurate.
After seeing this movie, I think it’s safe to say it’s likely we could see him in more action movies. The movie was a bit rough around the edges and perhaps 15 to 20 minutes longer than it needed to be. I felt like Bardem’s presence in the film was ‘wasted’. His character was quiet, spoke very little, and when they did give the character significant time in front of the camera he was drunk for most of it. Bardem has become legendary in his own right and I was hoping for a lot more for his character. The movie was NOT terrible though. One thing that impressed me was the fact that the filmmakers and the writers had the ‘guts’ to include mention of the type of thing that’s going on in Africa right now with corporations fighting for the continents resources and using the civil unrest to their advantage as part of the storyline.
All in all, I’d give the film 3 out of 5 stars. Catch the matinee or order it online. It’s not much when you compare it to something from the ‘Bourne’ or ‘Bond’ franchises. What you see in ‘The Gunman’ is the kind of action film that’s not outside the realm of possibility in real life.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ this is ‘The CameraMan’ saying thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies.
Second Review by Jennifer Fiduccia
The Gunman, stars Sean Penn as James Terrier, Javier Bardem as Felix, Idris Elba as Barnes, Ray Winstone as Stanley, Mark Rylance as Cox and Jasmine Trinca as Annie.
The movie starts out by showing the men all working together as guards for a humanitarian effort in Congo but we are quickly led to believe that they might also be ‘up to something’
Annie is Jims’ fiancé, but it is overly obvious that Felix is jealous and wishes she were his.
Our beliefs become justified when we see the group of guys get orders to assassinate the Minister of Mining, and its a sort of blind draw as to who has to do the actual shooting. Whoever gets picked must then leave the country. It is revealed that that is how Felix wants it to be.
Terrier draws the short straw so to speak, and must carry out the assassination, and then flee the country.
The movie then skips ahead to 8 years later, and sees Jim once again helping a humanitarian effort in Africa, digging wells.
As he works, his group is suddenly attacked by a group of mercenaries, and Jim manages to fight them off and kill them.
He then begins to hunt down his old team mates in an attempt to try and figure out who tried to kill him and why.
The action in the movie is good, and fast paced, the stunts were well done. None of the stunts seemed ‘unbelievable’ given the circumstances they were put in.
The relationships between the characters could have been better fleshed out, and I was confused most of the way through the movie as to who was after Jim and why, but I guess that was intended in the plot.
Overall, if you are looking for a decent action film with a bunch of shooting and car chases, this will fit the bill.
I’d give the movie 3 out of 5 stars, specifically in the category of ‘action films’.
Starring Sean Penn, Javier Bardem, Idris Elba, Jasmine Trinca, Ray Winstone, Peter Franzén, Mark Rylance, and based upon the 1981 book ‘The Prone Gunman’ by Jean-Patrick Manchette
‘The Gunman’ is set in the chaos that is modern Africa where civil unrest and war are day-to-day occurrences and western countries and multi-national conglomerates fight for control of the continent’s vital resources. Within this backdrop we find the character of Jim “Twink” Terrier (Penn). A corporate mercenary AKA security contractor on his last ‘assignment’ forced to leave
behind the woman he loves after going into hiding once his final assignment is complete. Now, years later after he has returned in secret to Africa he is forced go on the hunt again after nearly being killed and confront his former boss Felix (Bardem) who may or may not hold the key to finding those responsible. As in the world of espionage however, no one can be trusted. With corporate interests, international law enforcement, and his deteriorating health Terrier is racing against the clock to ensure that the world knows the whole story and perhaps find his long lost love before it’s too late.
Penn is obviously known for his dramatic roles. To say he is ‘legendary’ is pretty accurate.
After seeing this movie, I think it’s safe to say it’s likely we could see him in more action movies. The movie was a bit rough around the edges and perhaps 15 to 20 minutes longer than it needed to be. I felt like Bardem’s presence in the film was ‘wasted’. His character was quiet, spoke very little, and when they did give the character significant time in front of the camera he was drunk for most of it. Bardem has become legendary in his own right and I was hoping for a lot more for his character. The movie was NOT terrible though. One thing that impressed me was the fact that the filmmakers and the writers had the ‘guts’ to include mention of the type of thing that’s going on in Africa right now with corporations fighting for the continents resources and using the civil unrest to their advantage as part of the storyline.
All in all, I’d give the film 3 out of 5 stars. Catch the matinee or order it online. It’s not much when you compare it to something from the ‘Bourne’ or ‘Bond’ franchises. What you see in ‘The Gunman’ is the kind of action film that’s not outside the realm of possibility in real life.
On behalf of my fellows at ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ this is ‘The CameraMan’ saying thanks for reading … and we’ll see you at the movies.
Second Review by Jennifer Fiduccia
The Gunman, stars Sean Penn as James Terrier, Javier Bardem as Felix, Idris Elba as Barnes, Ray Winstone as Stanley, Mark Rylance as Cox and Jasmine Trinca as Annie.
The movie starts out by showing the men all working together as guards for a humanitarian effort in Congo but we are quickly led to believe that they might also be ‘up to something’
Annie is Jims’ fiancé, but it is overly obvious that Felix is jealous and wishes she were his.
Our beliefs become justified when we see the group of guys get orders to assassinate the Minister of Mining, and its a sort of blind draw as to who has to do the actual shooting. Whoever gets picked must then leave the country. It is revealed that that is how Felix wants it to be.
Terrier draws the short straw so to speak, and must carry out the assassination, and then flee the country.
The movie then skips ahead to 8 years later, and sees Jim once again helping a humanitarian effort in Africa, digging wells.
As he works, his group is suddenly attacked by a group of mercenaries, and Jim manages to fight them off and kill them.
He then begins to hunt down his old team mates in an attempt to try and figure out who tried to kill him and why.
The action in the movie is good, and fast paced, the stunts were well done. None of the stunts seemed ‘unbelievable’ given the circumstances they were put in.
The relationships between the characters could have been better fleshed out, and I was confused most of the way through the movie as to who was after Jim and why, but I guess that was intended in the plot.
Overall, if you are looking for a decent action film with a bunch of shooting and car chases, this will fit the bill.
I’d give the movie 3 out of 5 stars, specifically in the category of ‘action films’.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the “ape” in “The Great Esc-ape”.
2011’s “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” was the one of the big movie surprises for me of that year. With staggeringly good mo-cap for the apes and a touching and memorable story it was (or would have been) a 5-Fad classic. 2014’s “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” whilst also good took a slight backward step. With “War”, the form is back almost to top notch, and this is a summer release at last deserving of the suffix “blockbuster”.
We have moved a number of years forwards from the events of “Dawn” and society as we know it has crumbled away still further: even the “Holidays are Coming” Coke lorry is no longer in service, so things MUST be bad! We begin the film with the apes having a nice ‘Centre Parcs’ break when their reverie and cappuccinos are rudely interrupted by the attacking forces of “The Colonel” (Woody Harrelson, “Triple 9“, “Zombieland”). For The Colonel is intent on tracking down and killing ape-leader Caesar (Andy Serkis, “LOTR”).
After things get decidedly personal, Caesar leaves his young son Cornelius (in a nice nod to the Roddy McDowell role in the original films) to find and kill The Colonel. So follows a “True Grit” style pursuit/revenge chase, made more similar to this analogy by the picking up of a waif-like mute girl (the excellent Amiah Miller). I found this to be a really emotional plot line, with Caesar torn between the animal drive of his revenge and his role as a leader to his whole community.
The film analogies continue as we take in a “Shining”-style winter hotel; a gritty Prisoner-of-War camp escape drama (“The Great Esc-ape”?); a barricades battle in the style of Helm’s Deep in “LOTR: The Two Towers”; and a full-on Coppola-style helicopter-based war sequence (“Ape-ocalypse now”, as graffiti in the film declares).
Once again, the mo-cap ability to express true emotions on the faces of the apes is mind-blowing, with Serkis again being outstanding as is Steve Zahn (“Dallas Buyer’s Club“) adding some (very funny) comic relief as “Bad Ape”.
While Woody Harrelson is not everyone’s cup of tea (including mine), here I found him to be actually very good (“SO EMOTIONAL”!) as the half crazed dictator forcing beings he sees as less worthy than his kind to build a wall. (That’s just SO familiar… think dammit… think….!). There’s a really cool plot twist in The Colonel’s character arc that I really didn’t see coming. Just so cool.
Another star of the film for me was Michael Giacchino’s music which is simply awesome. Starting with a superbly retro rendition of the 20th Century Fox theme (not top of my list: “The Simpson’s Movie” still holds that spot for me!) Giacchino decorates every scene with great themes and like all great film music some of it you barely notice. A dramatic telling by the Colonel of his back-story is accompanied by sonorous music that is similar in its power to James Horner’s classic “Electronic Battlefield” in “Patriot Games”: only when the scene finishes and the music stops do you appreciate how central it was to the emotion of the scene. (As I sat through all of the end-titles for the music I can also confirm that – despite all the odds – there is no “monkey” at the end!)
The script by “Dawn” collaborators Mark Bomback and (director) Matt Reeves is eventful and packs a dramatic punch particularly in the last half of the film. The talented Mr Reeves (who also directed “Cloverfield” and “Let Me In” and is in assigned to the next Ben Affleck outing as “The Batman”) directs with panache, never letting the foot come off the tension pedal.
On the downside, that “last half of the film” is still 70 minutes away, and whilst I appreciate a leisurely pace for properly setting characters and motivations in place, getting to those simply brilliant scenes set at “the border” is a bit of a slog that might have been tightened up and moved along a bit quicker. Also, while talking about editing, I would have personally ended the film about 90 seconds before they did.
I saw this in 3D, but the effects are subtle at best (although there is a nice binocular rangefinder view). In my opinion it’s not worth going out of your way to experience in 3D.
But overall I loved this movie. The film is chock full of visual delights for film lovers (one of my favourites being “Bedtime for Bonzo” – a nice historical film reference – written on the back of a soldier’s helmet). It’s an epic action film with a strong emotional core to the story that genuinely moved me. There may be other spin-off Planet of the Apes films to follow. But if they left this here, as a near-perfect trilogy, that would be absolutely fine by me.
We have moved a number of years forwards from the events of “Dawn” and society as we know it has crumbled away still further: even the “Holidays are Coming” Coke lorry is no longer in service, so things MUST be bad! We begin the film with the apes having a nice ‘Centre Parcs’ break when their reverie and cappuccinos are rudely interrupted by the attacking forces of “The Colonel” (Woody Harrelson, “Triple 9“, “Zombieland”). For The Colonel is intent on tracking down and killing ape-leader Caesar (Andy Serkis, “LOTR”).
After things get decidedly personal, Caesar leaves his young son Cornelius (in a nice nod to the Roddy McDowell role in the original films) to find and kill The Colonel. So follows a “True Grit” style pursuit/revenge chase, made more similar to this analogy by the picking up of a waif-like mute girl (the excellent Amiah Miller). I found this to be a really emotional plot line, with Caesar torn between the animal drive of his revenge and his role as a leader to his whole community.
The film analogies continue as we take in a “Shining”-style winter hotel; a gritty Prisoner-of-War camp escape drama (“The Great Esc-ape”?); a barricades battle in the style of Helm’s Deep in “LOTR: The Two Towers”; and a full-on Coppola-style helicopter-based war sequence (“Ape-ocalypse now”, as graffiti in the film declares).
Once again, the mo-cap ability to express true emotions on the faces of the apes is mind-blowing, with Serkis again being outstanding as is Steve Zahn (“Dallas Buyer’s Club“) adding some (very funny) comic relief as “Bad Ape”.
While Woody Harrelson is not everyone’s cup of tea (including mine), here I found him to be actually very good (“SO EMOTIONAL”!) as the half crazed dictator forcing beings he sees as less worthy than his kind to build a wall. (That’s just SO familiar… think dammit… think….!). There’s a really cool plot twist in The Colonel’s character arc that I really didn’t see coming. Just so cool.
Another star of the film for me was Michael Giacchino’s music which is simply awesome. Starting with a superbly retro rendition of the 20th Century Fox theme (not top of my list: “The Simpson’s Movie” still holds that spot for me!) Giacchino decorates every scene with great themes and like all great film music some of it you barely notice. A dramatic telling by the Colonel of his back-story is accompanied by sonorous music that is similar in its power to James Horner’s classic “Electronic Battlefield” in “Patriot Games”: only when the scene finishes and the music stops do you appreciate how central it was to the emotion of the scene. (As I sat through all of the end-titles for the music I can also confirm that – despite all the odds – there is no “monkey” at the end!)
The script by “Dawn” collaborators Mark Bomback and (director) Matt Reeves is eventful and packs a dramatic punch particularly in the last half of the film. The talented Mr Reeves (who also directed “Cloverfield” and “Let Me In” and is in assigned to the next Ben Affleck outing as “The Batman”) directs with panache, never letting the foot come off the tension pedal.
On the downside, that “last half of the film” is still 70 minutes away, and whilst I appreciate a leisurely pace for properly setting characters and motivations in place, getting to those simply brilliant scenes set at “the border” is a bit of a slog that might have been tightened up and moved along a bit quicker. Also, while talking about editing, I would have personally ended the film about 90 seconds before they did.
I saw this in 3D, but the effects are subtle at best (although there is a nice binocular rangefinder view). In my opinion it’s not worth going out of your way to experience in 3D.
But overall I loved this movie. The film is chock full of visual delights for film lovers (one of my favourites being “Bedtime for Bonzo” – a nice historical film reference – written on the back of a soldier’s helmet). It’s an epic action film with a strong emotional core to the story that genuinely moved me. There may be other spin-off Planet of the Apes films to follow. But if they left this here, as a near-perfect trilogy, that would be absolutely fine by me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Ready or Not (2019) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
I’ve always loved playing games, board games, role playing games, computer games…whatever. I remember as a kid most of the games we played were played outside, whether it was a game of capture the flag, tag, or the always entertaining game of Hide and Seek. All the games I have ever played have been played in fun, with no real stakes involved outside of maybe some pride or some friendly competition. What if there was more at stake than simply having to sit out the game for the rest of the time? What if hiding and surviving until dawn was the only way you were going to live to see the next day? I don’t know about you, but I’d make sure it was the best game of Hide and Seek I’d ever played, or it would end up being my last. Ready or Not, a dark comedy from Fox Searchlight (now Walt Disney Studios) and directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett, explores what happens when a ruthless business man sells his soul to the devil for the sake of a board game empire.
Early on we are introduced to Grace. She spent her childhood bouncing from foster home to foster home, wanting a family but just never quite getting one. When she finally finds the man of her dreams Alex (Mark O’Brien) who also is one of the heirs to a giant gaming empire, she believes that all her longing for a family, even one as messed up as his, is finally paying off. Not long after the wedding it is revealed that part of the tradition to joining the family is to play a game. Alex reassures her that the game could be something as simple as checkers or possibly as complex as chess. He doesn’t know as it’s up to a special box, imbued with mystical powers that selects the game that she will be forced to play.
Upon placing the card in the box, and withdrawing it, three little words are inscribed upon it…Hide and Seek. Thinking this is simply a game, and with no further instructions, the family puts on the Hide and Seek record and begin counting to 100. Once the count is up, weapons are handed out to the “seekers” and the game begins.
Not long after finding her hiding spot, Grace quickly becomes bored of playing and comes out admitting defeat. It is only after a series of unfortunate events resulting in the deaths of some of the key players does Grace finally understand that this family plays for keeps. With the help of an unlikely ally from Alex’s brother Daniel (Adam Brody), she not only is given an opportunity to survive the night, but also learns of the pact with the devil that was made which allowed the family to acquire its great fortune. Unless they can satisfy the curse, the entire family will not live to see the sunrise.
Ready or Not takes an outstanding cast and provides them with an equally fantastic setting. Andie MacDowell portrays the creepy mother-in-law Becky, along with her equally creepy and even more unhinged husband Tony (Henry Czerny). Each character plays out their roles in the most over-the-top performances imaginable, an they pull them off more believably then I think they even had intended. Whether its Kristian Bunn as the bumbling Fitch, who is forced to YouTube how to use a crossbow and googles whether pacts with the devil are real or BS…or Elyse Levesque as the stoic Charity, who has absolutely no problem killing someone, if it means she gets to maintain her lavish lifestyle. The cast is truly what pulls the movie off, with their ability to take the absurdity and make it almost feel normal.
Ready or Not does have the occasional jump scare and is literally coated in blood throughout, but it’s the dark comedy that really sets this movie apart from many that have come before it. I don’t know if it’s wrong to laugh at things that should be completely taboo as much as I did. Ready or Not tries to make you think it’s serious, even when you know it is intentionally not. While some of the dialog might fall a bit flat, you’d be hard pressed to notice between your bursts of laughter. You know a movie does something right, when you find yourself quoting it not only immediately after it finishes, but into the next day (and at this rate probably beyond).
Ready or Not is a fun film, that’s the best way to describe it. It’s gruesome and of course violent, but it doesn’t take itself seriously and asks the same of the audience. There have been other movies who have taken this genre too seriously in the past, and lead to mixed results. Ready or Not wants you to laugh at its absurdity and take glee in the events that take place. Based on the individual characters, it’s amazing that the family has survived as long as it has…must be because that card doesn’t come up very often. If you are looking for a fun film, one that you want to laugh at (and with) you could certainly do worse than Ready or Not. It is one of the best dark comedies to come out in years, and it makes me long for the days when movies were still unique and weren’t simply attempting to reboot everything.
Early on we are introduced to Grace. She spent her childhood bouncing from foster home to foster home, wanting a family but just never quite getting one. When she finally finds the man of her dreams Alex (Mark O’Brien) who also is one of the heirs to a giant gaming empire, she believes that all her longing for a family, even one as messed up as his, is finally paying off. Not long after the wedding it is revealed that part of the tradition to joining the family is to play a game. Alex reassures her that the game could be something as simple as checkers or possibly as complex as chess. He doesn’t know as it’s up to a special box, imbued with mystical powers that selects the game that she will be forced to play.
Upon placing the card in the box, and withdrawing it, three little words are inscribed upon it…Hide and Seek. Thinking this is simply a game, and with no further instructions, the family puts on the Hide and Seek record and begin counting to 100. Once the count is up, weapons are handed out to the “seekers” and the game begins.
Not long after finding her hiding spot, Grace quickly becomes bored of playing and comes out admitting defeat. It is only after a series of unfortunate events resulting in the deaths of some of the key players does Grace finally understand that this family plays for keeps. With the help of an unlikely ally from Alex’s brother Daniel (Adam Brody), she not only is given an opportunity to survive the night, but also learns of the pact with the devil that was made which allowed the family to acquire its great fortune. Unless they can satisfy the curse, the entire family will not live to see the sunrise.
Ready or Not takes an outstanding cast and provides them with an equally fantastic setting. Andie MacDowell portrays the creepy mother-in-law Becky, along with her equally creepy and even more unhinged husband Tony (Henry Czerny). Each character plays out their roles in the most over-the-top performances imaginable, an they pull them off more believably then I think they even had intended. Whether its Kristian Bunn as the bumbling Fitch, who is forced to YouTube how to use a crossbow and googles whether pacts with the devil are real or BS…or Elyse Levesque as the stoic Charity, who has absolutely no problem killing someone, if it means she gets to maintain her lavish lifestyle. The cast is truly what pulls the movie off, with their ability to take the absurdity and make it almost feel normal.
Ready or Not does have the occasional jump scare and is literally coated in blood throughout, but it’s the dark comedy that really sets this movie apart from many that have come before it. I don’t know if it’s wrong to laugh at things that should be completely taboo as much as I did. Ready or Not tries to make you think it’s serious, even when you know it is intentionally not. While some of the dialog might fall a bit flat, you’d be hard pressed to notice between your bursts of laughter. You know a movie does something right, when you find yourself quoting it not only immediately after it finishes, but into the next day (and at this rate probably beyond).
Ready or Not is a fun film, that’s the best way to describe it. It’s gruesome and of course violent, but it doesn’t take itself seriously and asks the same of the audience. There have been other movies who have taken this genre too seriously in the past, and lead to mixed results. Ready or Not wants you to laugh at its absurdity and take glee in the events that take place. Based on the individual characters, it’s amazing that the family has survived as long as it has…must be because that card doesn’t come up very often. If you are looking for a fun film, one that you want to laugh at (and with) you could certainly do worse than Ready or Not. It is one of the best dark comedies to come out in years, and it makes me long for the days when movies were still unique and weren’t simply attempting to reboot everything.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tiny People, Big Mess.
From the trailer this film looked quirky, funny and interesting and has been on my “looking forward to” list for many months. Oh dear, what a let down.
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Feb 28, 2022
In 1989 Michael Keaton was seen as a very controversial choice to wear the Cowl of Batman but soon proved his doubters wrong by turning “Batman” and its subsequent sequel “Batman Returns” into massive Box Office success before leaving the cape behind.
While four other actors have taken up the cinematic version of the character in the subsequent years, Keaton has remained for many the Gold Standard with Christian Bale likely being his biggest rival.
When Robert Pattinson was named as the new Batman, there was interest but concern as an actor who is largely known for playing Edward in the “Twilight” films seemed to be an odd choice. However, I would say that anyone who has seen some of his recent work including his performance in “The Lighthouse” would be playing him a disservice by saying he was not up to the part.
In “The Batman”, audiences are given a darker and more broken Bruce Wayne, an Emo recluse who is far from the Socialite he has been portrayed as for decades and a very sullen and withdrawn individual who does not exude charm or grace and even shows issues making eye-contact.
When the Mayor of Gotham is killed shortly before the election by a mysterious individual known as “The Riddler” (Paul Dano), the vigilante known as “The Batman” is called in to help the police by Lt. James Gordon (Jeffrey Wright). Gordon has been working with Batman for some time but it is clear that his association with him has not won him any favors with his fellow officers, many of which openly question his use and involvement in the crime scenes.
Further complicating matters are clues left at the various crime locales that are addressed to The Batman and cause many to believe that he may be working with the very killer they are attempting to stop.
As the investigation unfolds, the seedy side of Gotham City comes to light in the form of a missing girl who was photographed with the married Mayor and may well be the key to the investigation. Her disappearance leads her friend Selina Kyle (Zoe Kravitz), to take on her Catwoman persona and delve deep into an underworld that features deadly individuals ranging from Carmine Falcone (John Turturro), and The Penguin (Colin Farrell), amongst others as she and the Batman conduct their own investigations that at times overlap and further complicate matters.
As the body count rises and Batman races to find the true method behind the madness of The Riddler, the tone becomes darker and more sinister in a deadly race against time.
The film eschews the usual abundance of action sequences and glossy special effects which are common for Comic Book related films and instead gives audiences a slow-burning murder mystery that holds your attention from start to finish over its three-hour run time.
The dark and foreboding tone of the film is brought home by the haunting and sharp piano keys of the film’s theme that permeates the film and punches home that this is a film clearly aimed at a more adult audience.
Pattinson does a great job showing the deeply broken individual that is behind the mask and that Batman is the only form of escape or therapy that Bruce Wayne has due to his insistence on saving a city that many argue cannot be saved. He has strained his relationship at times with Alfred (Andy Serkis), caused damage to the financial stability and reputation of the family company in his quest for vengeance and justice, and has become a bitter and broken recluse in doing so. In many ways, it could be argued that his only socialization with others is as The Batman and his single-minded obsession is chilling to watch.
Pattinson also handles the action sequences well as the film spaces them out to put the emphasis more on the man than the gadgets as they are kept to a minimum even during a thrilling chase with the new version of The Batmobile.
The strong supporting cast works well with the film and Paul Dano gives a very compelling and disturbing version of his character which makes the film even darker and more engrossing.
Director Matt Reeves has crafted a dark and foreboding tone and visual style as a good portion of the film takes place in the darkness and his screenplay is not afraid to take chances by putting the emphasis on the characters and their flaws versus an abundance of action and effects.
I found this version of the character and interpretation more engrossing than prior versions of the film as the bold move to do a slow-burning and dark murder mystery versus an effect-laden action film reminded me of some of the better Batman stories such as Batman: The Killing Joke or Batman: The Long Halloween.
The film is not going to be for everyone, especially younger viewers and some may take issue with the casting choices, but their performances shine and as such, “The Batman” was a very engaging and unforgettable tale that for me serves as one of the best adaptations of the character ever.
4 stars out of 5
While four other actors have taken up the cinematic version of the character in the subsequent years, Keaton has remained for many the Gold Standard with Christian Bale likely being his biggest rival.
When Robert Pattinson was named as the new Batman, there was interest but concern as an actor who is largely known for playing Edward in the “Twilight” films seemed to be an odd choice. However, I would say that anyone who has seen some of his recent work including his performance in “The Lighthouse” would be playing him a disservice by saying he was not up to the part.
In “The Batman”, audiences are given a darker and more broken Bruce Wayne, an Emo recluse who is far from the Socialite he has been portrayed as for decades and a very sullen and withdrawn individual who does not exude charm or grace and even shows issues making eye-contact.
When the Mayor of Gotham is killed shortly before the election by a mysterious individual known as “The Riddler” (Paul Dano), the vigilante known as “The Batman” is called in to help the police by Lt. James Gordon (Jeffrey Wright). Gordon has been working with Batman for some time but it is clear that his association with him has not won him any favors with his fellow officers, many of which openly question his use and involvement in the crime scenes.
Further complicating matters are clues left at the various crime locales that are addressed to The Batman and cause many to believe that he may be working with the very killer they are attempting to stop.
As the investigation unfolds, the seedy side of Gotham City comes to light in the form of a missing girl who was photographed with the married Mayor and may well be the key to the investigation. Her disappearance leads her friend Selina Kyle (Zoe Kravitz), to take on her Catwoman persona and delve deep into an underworld that features deadly individuals ranging from Carmine Falcone (John Turturro), and The Penguin (Colin Farrell), amongst others as she and the Batman conduct their own investigations that at times overlap and further complicate matters.
As the body count rises and Batman races to find the true method behind the madness of The Riddler, the tone becomes darker and more sinister in a deadly race against time.
The film eschews the usual abundance of action sequences and glossy special effects which are common for Comic Book related films and instead gives audiences a slow-burning murder mystery that holds your attention from start to finish over its three-hour run time.
The dark and foreboding tone of the film is brought home by the haunting and sharp piano keys of the film’s theme that permeates the film and punches home that this is a film clearly aimed at a more adult audience.
Pattinson does a great job showing the deeply broken individual that is behind the mask and that Batman is the only form of escape or therapy that Bruce Wayne has due to his insistence on saving a city that many argue cannot be saved. He has strained his relationship at times with Alfred (Andy Serkis), caused damage to the financial stability and reputation of the family company in his quest for vengeance and justice, and has become a bitter and broken recluse in doing so. In many ways, it could be argued that his only socialization with others is as The Batman and his single-minded obsession is chilling to watch.
Pattinson also handles the action sequences well as the film spaces them out to put the emphasis more on the man than the gadgets as they are kept to a minimum even during a thrilling chase with the new version of The Batmobile.
The strong supporting cast works well with the film and Paul Dano gives a very compelling and disturbing version of his character which makes the film even darker and more engrossing.
Director Matt Reeves has crafted a dark and foreboding tone and visual style as a good portion of the film takes place in the darkness and his screenplay is not afraid to take chances by putting the emphasis on the characters and their flaws versus an abundance of action and effects.
I found this version of the character and interpretation more engrossing than prior versions of the film as the bold move to do a slow-burning and dark murder mystery versus an effect-laden action film reminded me of some of the better Batman stories such as Batman: The Killing Joke or Batman: The Long Halloween.
The film is not going to be for everyone, especially younger viewers and some may take issue with the casting choices, but their performances shine and as such, “The Batman” was a very engaging and unforgettable tale that for me serves as one of the best adaptations of the character ever.
4 stars out of 5
Lee (2222 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Feb 8, 2019 (Updated Feb 8, 2019)
The Visuals (1 more)
Alita
A lot of big names, overqualified and underutilised (1 more)
Clunky dialogue and pacing issues
All style, not much substance
James Cameron has spent more than a decade trying to bring Alita: Battle Angel to the big screen. Based on a popular cyberpunk manga series by Yukito Kishiro, published between 1990-1995, he has spent that time refining the script and developing the world that Alita inhabits. And that’s pretty much what he now spends most of his time taking care of with the Avatar movies and the world of Pandora. Hence the reason why he eventually decided to step back into producer duties for this movie, letting Robert Rodriguez pick up the directing reins in order to finally get it finished. Rodriguez uses much of the script that Cameron wrote, but brings a little bit of his trademark style to the table too.
It’s 2563, and we’re in Iron City. Dr Dyson Ido (Christoph Waltz) is scavenging among a huge scrapyard, looking for cyborg spare parts that he can make use of, while fresh metal and rubbish rains down from Zalem – a man-made, floating city sitting in the sky above Iron City. 300 years ago there were many of these floating cities but following a brutal war all of them except for Zalem perished. During that time though, the elevator leading up to Zalem was destroyed, and these days only the ‘pure’ inhabitants of Zalem are permitted there. Nobody from Earth is allowed to visit and if anyone comes down from Zalem, they’re not allowed back. It’s to try and avoid any contamination from entering Zalem. If you’ve seen the Matt Damon movie Elysium… well, then it’s a bit like that really.
Among the usual items, such as robotic hands and eyeballs, Dr Ido discovers Alita, or rather the core of Alita – lying lifeless and broken, with only a battered hairless head and upper torso remaining. He takes her back to his laboratory/home, where he works as a cybernetics expert, repairing and upgrading the inhabitants of Iron City who are either cyborgs or humans with cyborg body parts. Along with his assisting nurse, and using a robotic body that had been previously built for his now deceased daughter (this gets briefly explained later), they rebuild her, giving her the name Alita (also his daughters name). Alita awakens later in a nice comfortable bed, in what was presumably Dr Ido’s daughters room. She has no memory of her previous existence and sets about experiencing all the sights, sensations and tastes that human life and Iron City has to offer, exploring and striking up a friendship with local boy Hugo and his group of friends. But, as the name of the movie implies, this cyborg was built for battle, and it’s not long before Alita begins to remember who exactly she used to be and just how good at kicking ass she is.
A quick word about the visuals, as they are by far the best thing about this movie. Iron City, despite clearly being a futuristic world, is certainly not dark or bleak looking in the way we’re used to with similar movies of this genre. Many of the early scenes take place during daylight hours and the city is a vibrant, bright, bustling home to thousand of humans and cyborgs. We get to go beyond the limits of Iron City – the city walls, out to the badlands beyond, and as you’d expect from Cameron a lot of thought and detail has gone into mapping out and building this world. The cyborgs and the other robots we meet are all pretty standard for a movie of this kind, but it’s Alita that is the most impressive. Much of this is down to the incredible CGI involved in making her look as realistic as she does, but a lot of what makes her so enjoyable and believable is down to Rosa Salazar, whose motion captured performance helps bring her to life. The visuals are obviously at their most impressive during the battle scenes involving Alita – where so many movies with heavy CGI battles end up as just a messy whirlpool of characters and action, that’s certainly not the case here. Slick, inventive and exhilarating choreography allowing you to actually track and follow every single character and action in crisp detail. It’s refreshing and impressive, even more so when watched in 3D and particularly so during the fast paced Motorball scenes featured towards the end of the movie.
Outside of the visuals though, other characters and plot lines don’t seem to stick so well, which is disappointing considering the rich source material available to the film makers. Alita: Battle Angel suffers from inconsistent pacing, dialogue that is clunky and exposition-heavy and there are many times when the accompanying soundtrack just felt distracting to me, out of place with whatever is currently happening. Christoph Waltz, Mahershala Ali and Jennifer Connolly all seem overqualified and underutilised, and the romance between Alita and Hugo is unnecessary, and at times annoying. It feels like it’s trying to cram too much story into its two hour run time, resulting in plot holes and frustrations later on. And there is even a cliffhanger ending – frustrating in that it feels as though we haven’t even properly concluded this part of the story and we’re now being left to wait should a sequel ever be given the go ahead.
I found much to enjoy with Alita: Battle Angel, and would gladly go see a sequel or two, should they get made. It’s enjoyable at times, and dazzling to look at, but overall it did leave me feeling a little bit frustrated and disappointed.
It’s 2563, and we’re in Iron City. Dr Dyson Ido (Christoph Waltz) is scavenging among a huge scrapyard, looking for cyborg spare parts that he can make use of, while fresh metal and rubbish rains down from Zalem – a man-made, floating city sitting in the sky above Iron City. 300 years ago there were many of these floating cities but following a brutal war all of them except for Zalem perished. During that time though, the elevator leading up to Zalem was destroyed, and these days only the ‘pure’ inhabitants of Zalem are permitted there. Nobody from Earth is allowed to visit and if anyone comes down from Zalem, they’re not allowed back. It’s to try and avoid any contamination from entering Zalem. If you’ve seen the Matt Damon movie Elysium… well, then it’s a bit like that really.
Among the usual items, such as robotic hands and eyeballs, Dr Ido discovers Alita, or rather the core of Alita – lying lifeless and broken, with only a battered hairless head and upper torso remaining. He takes her back to his laboratory/home, where he works as a cybernetics expert, repairing and upgrading the inhabitants of Iron City who are either cyborgs or humans with cyborg body parts. Along with his assisting nurse, and using a robotic body that had been previously built for his now deceased daughter (this gets briefly explained later), they rebuild her, giving her the name Alita (also his daughters name). Alita awakens later in a nice comfortable bed, in what was presumably Dr Ido’s daughters room. She has no memory of her previous existence and sets about experiencing all the sights, sensations and tastes that human life and Iron City has to offer, exploring and striking up a friendship with local boy Hugo and his group of friends. But, as the name of the movie implies, this cyborg was built for battle, and it’s not long before Alita begins to remember who exactly she used to be and just how good at kicking ass she is.
A quick word about the visuals, as they are by far the best thing about this movie. Iron City, despite clearly being a futuristic world, is certainly not dark or bleak looking in the way we’re used to with similar movies of this genre. Many of the early scenes take place during daylight hours and the city is a vibrant, bright, bustling home to thousand of humans and cyborgs. We get to go beyond the limits of Iron City – the city walls, out to the badlands beyond, and as you’d expect from Cameron a lot of thought and detail has gone into mapping out and building this world. The cyborgs and the other robots we meet are all pretty standard for a movie of this kind, but it’s Alita that is the most impressive. Much of this is down to the incredible CGI involved in making her look as realistic as she does, but a lot of what makes her so enjoyable and believable is down to Rosa Salazar, whose motion captured performance helps bring her to life. The visuals are obviously at their most impressive during the battle scenes involving Alita – where so many movies with heavy CGI battles end up as just a messy whirlpool of characters and action, that’s certainly not the case here. Slick, inventive and exhilarating choreography allowing you to actually track and follow every single character and action in crisp detail. It’s refreshing and impressive, even more so when watched in 3D and particularly so during the fast paced Motorball scenes featured towards the end of the movie.
Outside of the visuals though, other characters and plot lines don’t seem to stick so well, which is disappointing considering the rich source material available to the film makers. Alita: Battle Angel suffers from inconsistent pacing, dialogue that is clunky and exposition-heavy and there are many times when the accompanying soundtrack just felt distracting to me, out of place with whatever is currently happening. Christoph Waltz, Mahershala Ali and Jennifer Connolly all seem overqualified and underutilised, and the romance between Alita and Hugo is unnecessary, and at times annoying. It feels like it’s trying to cram too much story into its two hour run time, resulting in plot holes and frustrations later on. And there is even a cliffhanger ending – frustrating in that it feels as though we haven’t even properly concluded this part of the story and we’re now being left to wait should a sequel ever be given the go ahead.
I found much to enjoy with Alita: Battle Angel, and would gladly go see a sequel or two, should they get made. It’s enjoyable at times, and dazzling to look at, but overall it did leave me feeling a little bit frustrated and disappointed.