Search
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Oct 30, 2017 (Updated Oct 30, 2017)
Amazing visuals (2 more)
Witty dialogue
Surprise appearances
Inconsistent tone (2 more)
Anti climax
Wasted villain
The Worst Avenger's Best Movie
Contains spoilers, click to show
After seeing Thor: Ragnarok, I feel like the filmmakers were so paranoid about not churning out another formulaic, checklist of a Marvel movie that they chucked a whole bunch of disparate ideas into this mixing pot of a film and hoped that some of it would work. To some extent they were right; some of it does work, but some of it really doesn't. The stuff that doesn't work would probably work okay in a separate movie, but here it just provides a lack of cohesion and brings a jolting change of tone to many of the film's scenes.
Let me elaborate on what I mean and there will be spoilers from this point on. This movie should have been at least three different movies:
There should have been a movie about Hela's return to Asgard, showing her recruiting Skurge and raising her army of the dead and showing Thor and Loki being forced to put their differences aside and having to work together to defeat their more powerful, evil sister.
There should have been another movie about Thor ending up on Sakaar and having to battle Hulk and other competitors and eventually starting an uprising against the Grandmaster.
Then there should have been a third movie about Ragnarok and striving to prevent that event from occurring and defeating Surtur.
The plot elements of Ragnarok could have been split into three movies and it would mean that certain characters wouldn't have been wasted and that the big events that take place would have had more weight and gravitas to them, instead of just being brushed off in favour of getting to the next punch-line.
For example, Odin dies in this film and Thor and Loki deal with it and move on in a matter of seconds. There are no emotional repercussions whatsoever. Another example is the Warriors Three appearing in a single scene, having no dialogue and being killed in a matter of seconds of being onscreen. They attempt a character arc with Skurge, but again Karl Urban is onscreen for such a small amount of time that no resolution is felt following his sacrifice at the end of the movie. As soon as Cate Blanchett starts to show some potential as a memorable Marvel villain, the movie cuts away to yet another scene of Hulk and Thor bantering on Sakaar. Idris Elba is wasted too, having barely any dialogue and a very dull subplot. Jeff Goldblum is used purely as a gimmick and again is wasted by not having anywhere near enough screen time. I normally like seeing Tessa Thompson in things, but even she phoned it in here, with her accent taking on multiple different tones and dialects from scene to scene. Then, at the end of the movie, it is like the filmmakers suddenly remembered, 'oh that's right we need to conclude that Ragnarok subplot that we started at the beginning of the movie.' You know the FU***NG TITLE OF THE MOVIE. And so that gets tacked on at the end to sort of bring a conclusion to all of the other multiple subplots and lazily wrap up the movie.
The sheer amount of ideas that they attempted to incorporate here, makes so many elements of the movie's plot feel underdeveloped and although most of these separate parts could have worked if they were split up and fleshed out, here they all just end up falling flat by the end of the movie making the film feel anti-climatic as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, there is also a lot here that works too. I thought the cameos from Matt Damon, Luke Hemsworth and Sam Neill was awesome. I liked the Doctor Strange appearance. I like how they had Thor lose his eye and I especially like how they managed to keep that out of all of the trailer and marketing. The trailers did ruin some things though, if we didn't already know that Mjolnir was going to get destroyed through seeing the trailers, it would have had more of an impact and all the talk about the vicious rival that Thor would have to face in the gladiator ring would have been way more effective if we didn't already know that it was going to be the Hulk.
Let's end things on a high note, the visuals were spectacular and this movie is worth going to see in theatres just for this alone. The CGI was incredible and the soundtrack was pretty great too. Overall this is a fun movie, but if like me you have been invested in these characters for the last five years, to see some of them go out with a whimper and some long term story arcs come to a disappointing conclusion, is unsatisfying to say the least.
Let me elaborate on what I mean and there will be spoilers from this point on. This movie should have been at least three different movies:
There should have been a movie about Hela's return to Asgard, showing her recruiting Skurge and raising her army of the dead and showing Thor and Loki being forced to put their differences aside and having to work together to defeat their more powerful, evil sister.
There should have been another movie about Thor ending up on Sakaar and having to battle Hulk and other competitors and eventually starting an uprising against the Grandmaster.
Then there should have been a third movie about Ragnarok and striving to prevent that event from occurring and defeating Surtur.
The plot elements of Ragnarok could have been split into three movies and it would mean that certain characters wouldn't have been wasted and that the big events that take place would have had more weight and gravitas to them, instead of just being brushed off in favour of getting to the next punch-line.
For example, Odin dies in this film and Thor and Loki deal with it and move on in a matter of seconds. There are no emotional repercussions whatsoever. Another example is the Warriors Three appearing in a single scene, having no dialogue and being killed in a matter of seconds of being onscreen. They attempt a character arc with Skurge, but again Karl Urban is onscreen for such a small amount of time that no resolution is felt following his sacrifice at the end of the movie. As soon as Cate Blanchett starts to show some potential as a memorable Marvel villain, the movie cuts away to yet another scene of Hulk and Thor bantering on Sakaar. Idris Elba is wasted too, having barely any dialogue and a very dull subplot. Jeff Goldblum is used purely as a gimmick and again is wasted by not having anywhere near enough screen time. I normally like seeing Tessa Thompson in things, but even she phoned it in here, with her accent taking on multiple different tones and dialects from scene to scene. Then, at the end of the movie, it is like the filmmakers suddenly remembered, 'oh that's right we need to conclude that Ragnarok subplot that we started at the beginning of the movie.' You know the FU***NG TITLE OF THE MOVIE. And so that gets tacked on at the end to sort of bring a conclusion to all of the other multiple subplots and lazily wrap up the movie.
The sheer amount of ideas that they attempted to incorporate here, makes so many elements of the movie's plot feel underdeveloped and although most of these separate parts could have worked if they were split up and fleshed out, here they all just end up falling flat by the end of the movie making the film feel anti-climatic as a whole.
Don't get me wrong, there is also a lot here that works too. I thought the cameos from Matt Damon, Luke Hemsworth and Sam Neill was awesome. I liked the Doctor Strange appearance. I like how they had Thor lose his eye and I especially like how they managed to keep that out of all of the trailer and marketing. The trailers did ruin some things though, if we didn't already know that Mjolnir was going to get destroyed through seeing the trailers, it would have had more of an impact and all the talk about the vicious rival that Thor would have to face in the gladiator ring would have been way more effective if we didn't already know that it was going to be the Hulk.
Let's end things on a high note, the visuals were spectacular and this movie is worth going to see in theatres just for this alone. The CGI was incredible and the soundtrack was pretty great too. Overall this is a fun movie, but if like me you have been invested in these characters for the last five years, to see some of them go out with a whimper and some long term story arcs come to a disappointing conclusion, is unsatisfying to say the least.
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.
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 (965 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’.
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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!