Search
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Once Upon A Deadpool (Deadpool 2 PG-13 Version) (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
So you want to see a family friendly version of Deadpool 2? Well you're out of luck because after all their editing it didn't make it past the 12A certificate criteria and had to be released as a 15 again. It still deserved that 15, it wasn't exactly hiding it's sweary side very well, and the violence is still there, you just don't get splattered with as much blood.
The editing unfortunately leaves you with some obvious continuity errors. The one that bugged me the most was the scene where DP is shot through the hand. They've left out the CGI for the gaping hole but it appears later in the film.
But lets look at the extra content you get.
Fred Savage and DP cut into the film in a homage to The Princess Bride. It's an amusing addition and I really did enjoy the Matt Damon skit.
They also edited the Stan Lee mural to say RIP, it definitely made it stick out more as I completely missed it the first time I saw DP2 at the cinema.
We also got an extra three credit scenes. One before the existing ones and two after. I nearly left... I was convinced that the fourth one was the end and I stood up to leave just as the fifth one started, and someone shouted at me to sit down. I'm not even mad, I was shouting internally at myself too. I was so glad to have seen it. The end Stan Lee montage brought a tear to my eye and was horribly poignant footage.
Is it in any way an improvement on the original? Absolutely not. Was it worth watching at the cinema? Definitely, yes. The screen was packed with people who knew what they were getting and were just there to have fun. (Apart from the two people who left after about ten minutes... spoil-sports.) We laughed together like it was the first time we'd seen the film and it was a great experience. With tickets in our cinema currently £5 of free with your Unlimited card it was well worth seeing on the big screen for the experience.
I'm left actively annoyed now though because it'll probably be another DVD I have to buy. Really there is no way to make Deadpool family friendly without taking everything away that makes him so fun. The ideal scenario would have been to have the Fred Savage bits edited together with the relevant snippets of the film and had it as a 20 minutes extra when they released it to buy. That or create a MST3K style commentary track for the film where you just see DP silently miming actions to Savage while he's telling him the story and we're watching the film, then having DP physically pause the film when Savage asks him questions so that they can do the scenes. Okay, I'm calm again now.
What you should do
I don't know if they're going to release it to buy or stream, and it was a one hit wonder at the cinema so I'm not really sure what you'll be able to do about seeing it. Ultimately though it's probably just worth watching the original again in all it's sweary and bloody glory.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
From this adaptation I think I'd like to have the bleeping buzzer that Deadpool uses in the added scenes. That would really come in handy on a day to day basis.
The editing unfortunately leaves you with some obvious continuity errors. The one that bugged me the most was the scene where DP is shot through the hand. They've left out the CGI for the gaping hole but it appears later in the film.
But lets look at the extra content you get.
Fred Savage and DP cut into the film in a homage to The Princess Bride. It's an amusing addition and I really did enjoy the Matt Damon skit.
They also edited the Stan Lee mural to say RIP, it definitely made it stick out more as I completely missed it the first time I saw DP2 at the cinema.
We also got an extra three credit scenes. One before the existing ones and two after. I nearly left... I was convinced that the fourth one was the end and I stood up to leave just as the fifth one started, and someone shouted at me to sit down. I'm not even mad, I was shouting internally at myself too. I was so glad to have seen it. The end Stan Lee montage brought a tear to my eye and was horribly poignant footage.
Is it in any way an improvement on the original? Absolutely not. Was it worth watching at the cinema? Definitely, yes. The screen was packed with people who knew what they were getting and were just there to have fun. (Apart from the two people who left after about ten minutes... spoil-sports.) We laughed together like it was the first time we'd seen the film and it was a great experience. With tickets in our cinema currently £5 of free with your Unlimited card it was well worth seeing on the big screen for the experience.
I'm left actively annoyed now though because it'll probably be another DVD I have to buy. Really there is no way to make Deadpool family friendly without taking everything away that makes him so fun. The ideal scenario would have been to have the Fred Savage bits edited together with the relevant snippets of the film and had it as a 20 minutes extra when they released it to buy. That or create a MST3K style commentary track for the film where you just see DP silently miming actions to Savage while he's telling him the story and we're watching the film, then having DP physically pause the film when Savage asks him questions so that they can do the scenes. Okay, I'm calm again now.
What you should do
I don't know if they're going to release it to buy or stream, and it was a one hit wonder at the cinema so I'm not really sure what you'll be able to do about seeing it. Ultimately though it's probably just worth watching the original again in all it's sweary and bloody glory.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
From this adaptation I think I'd like to have the bleeping buzzer that Deadpool uses in the added scenes. That would really come in handy on a day to day basis.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Oppenheimer (2023) in Movies
Jul 27, 2023
Gonna Win A Ton of Awards
Clear your shelves, Christopher Nolan and many of those involved in the making of his new movie OPPENHEIMER, you’re going to need the space for the many, many trophies you are going to receive next spring.
Based on the life of the “Father of the Atomic Bomb”, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Nolan’s latest epic is a rarity in today’s Motion Picture landscape - a prestige picture, bankrolled lavishly, filmed gorgeously and populated with a veritable who’s who of “A” list actors that tells a complex story of a complicated man who ends up remorseful of what he has unleashed in this world.
And it works very, very well.
Nolan regular, Cillian Murphy, is equal parts quirky, driven, determined and haunted in his multi-layered performance as the titular character - who is in almost every scene of this 3 hour film. He is fascinating to watch and his “more internal than external” performance draws the audience in throughout the events depicted in this film. It is the Best Performance of the career of one of the most interesting actors of this generation and one should not be surprised if his name is called during awards season next year.
Murphy is capably supported by a long list of strong performers giving strong performances in roles that are much smaller than ones they normally receive. Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett(!), Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Matthew Modine, Kenneth Branagh (of course, it’s a Nolan film), Jason Clarke and Alden Ehrenreich bring their “A” game to roles that could have been thrown away.
Also, good ol’ Tom Conti (one of the most interesting actors from the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s) shows up in this film as Albert Einstein and reminds us all why he is such a good performer…and…wait until you see who shows up for one scene in this film as President Harry S. Truman!
Oh…and don’t forget Emily Blunt (as Oppenheimer’s wife) and (surprisingly) Robert Downey, Jr. (as a politician using Oppenheimer for his own purposes). Both of them put in Award-winning-level uspporting performances, elevating two “A” list actors to the “A+ list”.
But this film is more than just it’s performers. Nolan demands - and receives - top notch work from the Cinematographer, the Sound Designer, the Editor, the Costume Designer and the Composer (Ludwig Goranssson, NOT Nolan regular Hans Zimmer). They (along with Nolan) craft a beautifully made and put together film that will dazzle the senses. If you get a chance, see this film in a movie theater and, if you can, see it in either iMAX or 70mm, you will be glad you did.
What holds this film back - just a little bit - is the story that is being told. Nolan (as he is want to do) plays with time and pretty frenetically cuts back and forth between about 4 different timelines to tell this story. It’s effective most of the time, but at other times, it becomes distracting and….with a 3 hour run time…does drag a bit at times.
But these are quibbles to a film that is “as good as it gets” by the BEST DIRECTOR plying his trade today. It is another triumph for Nolan and he will be making many, many acceptance speeches in just a few short months.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Based on the life of the “Father of the Atomic Bomb”, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Nolan’s latest epic is a rarity in today’s Motion Picture landscape - a prestige picture, bankrolled lavishly, filmed gorgeously and populated with a veritable who’s who of “A” list actors that tells a complex story of a complicated man who ends up remorseful of what he has unleashed in this world.
And it works very, very well.
Nolan regular, Cillian Murphy, is equal parts quirky, driven, determined and haunted in his multi-layered performance as the titular character - who is in almost every scene of this 3 hour film. He is fascinating to watch and his “more internal than external” performance draws the audience in throughout the events depicted in this film. It is the Best Performance of the career of one of the most interesting actors of this generation and one should not be surprised if his name is called during awards season next year.
Murphy is capably supported by a long list of strong performers giving strong performances in roles that are much smaller than ones they normally receive. Matt Damon, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett(!), Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Matthew Modine, Kenneth Branagh (of course, it’s a Nolan film), Jason Clarke and Alden Ehrenreich bring their “A” game to roles that could have been thrown away.
Also, good ol’ Tom Conti (one of the most interesting actors from the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s) shows up in this film as Albert Einstein and reminds us all why he is such a good performer…and…wait until you see who shows up for one scene in this film as President Harry S. Truman!
Oh…and don’t forget Emily Blunt (as Oppenheimer’s wife) and (surprisingly) Robert Downey, Jr. (as a politician using Oppenheimer for his own purposes). Both of them put in Award-winning-level uspporting performances, elevating two “A” list actors to the “A+ list”.
But this film is more than just it’s performers. Nolan demands - and receives - top notch work from the Cinematographer, the Sound Designer, the Editor, the Costume Designer and the Composer (Ludwig Goranssson, NOT Nolan regular Hans Zimmer). They (along with Nolan) craft a beautifully made and put together film that will dazzle the senses. If you get a chance, see this film in a movie theater and, if you can, see it in either iMAX or 70mm, you will be glad you did.
What holds this film back - just a little bit - is the story that is being told. Nolan (as he is want to do) plays with time and pretty frenetically cuts back and forth between about 4 different timelines to tell this story. It’s effective most of the time, but at other times, it becomes distracting and….with a 3 hour run time…does drag a bit at times.
But these are quibbles to a film that is “as good as it gets” by the BEST DIRECTOR plying his trade today. It is another triumph for Nolan and he will be making many, many acceptance speeches in just a few short months.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
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!
Darren (1599 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Characters – Ken Miles was the greatest racer of the era, the problem with him was always his attitude, never wanting to follow rules almost blacklisting him from most teams around the world, his wife wants him to race, his son looks up to him and Carroll knows he is the best man for the job, he help design the car with Carroll and his team and must prove himself on the track to get the drive at Le Mans. Carroll Shelby won Le Mans, retired from the racing side of the sport to start designing the cars, he is considered the best in America and is pick by Ford to design their race car, he will challenge the order of things because he knows he can achieve this, if he is given the chance to select who he wants in the car. Mollie is the ever-supportive wife of Ken, she wants him to drive knowing he will get bored if he doesn’t, she only asks that he is honest with her, she odes also get a great driving scene. we do get to meet plenty of executives from Ford, who each have their own agenda with Leo Beebe being made out to be the villain of the team, while Henry Ford II is made out to be strict, but will accept honesty.
Performances – Christian Bale and Matt Damon are both fantastic proving to everyone why they are considered two of the best in the business today, they have great individual moments as well as banter between them. Outside of the two big names, nobody does get to reach their level and everybody is a joy to watch in their roles.
Story – The story here follows Henry Ford II desire to beat Enzo Ferrari in the Le Mans 24-hour race, we see him hire a former winner turned designer to build his car, as the two sides do battle to get Ken Miles behind the wheel, in an attempt to make history. This does show how an American decided he would rather push the limits of his bank than improve the product he was making as we see how Ford changed the racing world that Ferrari had been dominating for decades and how faith in a driver is often more important that having the fastest car. The story is told over a couple of years, we get to see the important turns in the battle between Carroll and Ford’s executives to get the best driver behind the wheel, before letting us just sit back and enjoy the races. It could have had a little bit of the story chopped down to save some time though.
Action/Biopic/Sport – The action mixes with the sport wonderfully to give us edge of the seat race moments that will be the highlight of the film, while the biopic side of the film seems to focus more on the car side of things only, while Ken does have a family, we really don’t learn anything else about Carroll outside of his work.
Settings – The film recreates the iconic race track perfectly and shows us how the time relevant cars were used in nearly every scene of the film, on and off the track.
Scene of the Movie – Le Mans Race.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Give us subtitles for the Ferrari scenes.
Final Thoughts – This is a high speed biopic that doesn’t let you breath through most of the action involved, it has brilliant performances from the whole cast and is a must watch for any motor sports fans.
Overall: Motor Sports Fans Must Watch.
Performances – Christian Bale and Matt Damon are both fantastic proving to everyone why they are considered two of the best in the business today, they have great individual moments as well as banter between them. Outside of the two big names, nobody does get to reach their level and everybody is a joy to watch in their roles.
Story – The story here follows Henry Ford II desire to beat Enzo Ferrari in the Le Mans 24-hour race, we see him hire a former winner turned designer to build his car, as the two sides do battle to get Ken Miles behind the wheel, in an attempt to make history. This does show how an American decided he would rather push the limits of his bank than improve the product he was making as we see how Ford changed the racing world that Ferrari had been dominating for decades and how faith in a driver is often more important that having the fastest car. The story is told over a couple of years, we get to see the important turns in the battle between Carroll and Ford’s executives to get the best driver behind the wheel, before letting us just sit back and enjoy the races. It could have had a little bit of the story chopped down to save some time though.
Action/Biopic/Sport – The action mixes with the sport wonderfully to give us edge of the seat race moments that will be the highlight of the film, while the biopic side of the film seems to focus more on the car side of things only, while Ken does have a family, we really don’t learn anything else about Carroll outside of his work.
Settings – The film recreates the iconic race track perfectly and shows us how the time relevant cars were used in nearly every scene of the film, on and off the track.
Scene of the Movie – Le Mans Race.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Give us subtitles for the Ferrari scenes.
Final Thoughts – This is a high speed biopic that doesn’t let you breath through most of the action involved, it has brilliant performances from the whole cast and is a must watch for any motor sports fans.
Overall: Motor Sports Fans Must Watch.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Sweeping up a few older films that I wanted to see but missed at the cinema in the last few years. My current IMDb watch list sits at 488, and, unlike this movie, never seems to shrink! There is a lot to keep up with. Bad reviews have kept me away from Alexander Payne’s Downsizing until now. I have to say, without the burden of expectation, it is a lot better than I thought it would be.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Overpopulation is a growing problem in the world and two Doctors, Dr. Jorgen Asbjornsen (Rolf Lassgard) and Dr. Andreas Jacobsen (Soren Pilmark) have found what they believe is the answer. The have discovered how to shrink all kinds of living matter, including humans. Asbjornsen and a group of volunteers are shrunk and live for years before showing the world. They believe that they can help solve the worlds hunger crisis as well as overpopulation. When occupational therapist Paul Safranek (Matt Damon) first hears of this he is fascinated with the idea of doing something grand to help save the world. But it isn’t until years later when he and his wife, Audrey Safranek (Kristen Wiig), run into an old college friend, Dave Johnson (Jason Sudeikis), who has been shrunk that he realizes he might be able to have a better life at four inches tall. Because of how cheap everything is to build for new tiny people there is an opportunity to live lavishly on meager means. The Safrankek’s have been struggling to get by and really be able enjoy life. When they hear that their hundreds of thousands could be millions they see this as their chance to live the luxury life. The head out to Leisureland Estates, a tiny community, to see what the small world has to offer. After the visit they are convinced and decide to go through with the procedure and begin the irreversible process of becoming “small.” On the operation date they go to separate areas to get completely shaved and prepped. When Paul wakes up he is surprised that Audrey is not with him and she has decided she cannot go through the irreversible process. After his divorce he is left alone trying to find himself and where he fits in a whole new world, at a whole new size.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
I’m a sucker for a Prohibition-set yarn. It’s a fascinating period in history and typically yields excellent filmmaking with gritty, no-nonsense performances, gorgeous production design and hard-boiled action. It was De Palma’s The Untouchables that hooked me. Some would call it a guilty pleasure; and sure, Morricone’s score is a little over-the-top, De Niro is more caricature than character actor as Al Capone and I’m not going to argue that Connery’s Oscar was a “sympathy vote”, but it’s got everything I mentioned above in spades and for me it’ll always be the high benchmark of the Prohibition era gangster epic. Ben Affleck’s fourth turn as director has done nothing to change my position on that.
Live by Night is an uninspired mess, from voice-over laden start to disastrously predictable end, bringing nothing new or exciting to the table. Beat for beat, its weak script moves from one sigh-inducing cliché to another, reaching clumsily for moments of high emotion that ring hollow and false. If anyone needs any further proof that Matt Damon did all the heavy lifting on the script for Good Will Hunting, they need look no further. It feels wrong to come down so hard on Affleck after his back-to-back successes as a director, but this is more akin to the first work of a blundering novice, and also certainly not what we’ve come to expect of a Dennis Lehane adaptation (see Mystic River, Shutter Island and Affleck’s own incredible directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone). His decision to wear so many hats on this project, producing, directing, sole screenwriter and lead actor, has to be the reason for this stumble. The script desperately needed another set of eyes and the part of Joe Coughlin was clearly written for someone younger and more capable of performing with the subtlety needed to play someone who has to traverse the number of moral dilemmas he’s faced with. Hopefully, this inevitable failure will be what convinces Affleck that his place should be behind the camera directing other people’s scripts and guiding other people’s performances.
Speaking of the performances, there is a massive curve in this collection of acting that swings wildly from the cartoonish to the nuanced. To start with, we have Matthew Maher as a KKK member out for his cut and Robert Glenister as an Irish mob boss, both of whom are supposed to be playing dangerous and threatening but can’t do any better than laughable and two-dimensional. Then there’s Chris Messina and Affleck himself as the hoods on the rise, their chemistry is ill-advised at best as they both seem to think they’re in a buddy comedy as opposed to a serious piece of gangster melodrama A favorite of mine, Brendan Gleeson, sadly leaves the screen within the first twenty minutes and that left me with only the inimitable Chris Cooper to look forward to. The subplot involving him and Elle Fanning, as his born-again daughter speaking out against Coughlin’s sinful ways is not without problems of its own, but at least they sell it. That should be no surprise on Cooper’s part, but now between this and The Neon Demon last summer; Fanning is firmly on my radar as one to watch. My hope was that we were going to get some tremendous battle of wills between her and Affleck’s character akin to Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis’ conflict in There Will Be Blood, but that was definitely asking too much. Fanning’s role, like Gleeson’s, is unfortunately cut short just as it gets good.
I guess The Untouchables is starting to sound less like a guilty pleasure and more like a masterpiece when compared to this regrettable misfire.
Live by Night is an uninspired mess, from voice-over laden start to disastrously predictable end, bringing nothing new or exciting to the table. Beat for beat, its weak script moves from one sigh-inducing cliché to another, reaching clumsily for moments of high emotion that ring hollow and false. If anyone needs any further proof that Matt Damon did all the heavy lifting on the script for Good Will Hunting, they need look no further. It feels wrong to come down so hard on Affleck after his back-to-back successes as a director, but this is more akin to the first work of a blundering novice, and also certainly not what we’ve come to expect of a Dennis Lehane adaptation (see Mystic River, Shutter Island and Affleck’s own incredible directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone). His decision to wear so many hats on this project, producing, directing, sole screenwriter and lead actor, has to be the reason for this stumble. The script desperately needed another set of eyes and the part of Joe Coughlin was clearly written for someone younger and more capable of performing with the subtlety needed to play someone who has to traverse the number of moral dilemmas he’s faced with. Hopefully, this inevitable failure will be what convinces Affleck that his place should be behind the camera directing other people’s scripts and guiding other people’s performances.
Speaking of the performances, there is a massive curve in this collection of acting that swings wildly from the cartoonish to the nuanced. To start with, we have Matthew Maher as a KKK member out for his cut and Robert Glenister as an Irish mob boss, both of whom are supposed to be playing dangerous and threatening but can’t do any better than laughable and two-dimensional. Then there’s Chris Messina and Affleck himself as the hoods on the rise, their chemistry is ill-advised at best as they both seem to think they’re in a buddy comedy as opposed to a serious piece of gangster melodrama A favorite of mine, Brendan Gleeson, sadly leaves the screen within the first twenty minutes and that left me with only the inimitable Chris Cooper to look forward to. The subplot involving him and Elle Fanning, as his born-again daughter speaking out against Coughlin’s sinful ways is not without problems of its own, but at least they sell it. That should be no surprise on Cooper’s part, but now between this and The Neon Demon last summer; Fanning is firmly on my radar as one to watch. My hope was that we were going to get some tremendous battle of wills between her and Affleck’s character akin to Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis’ conflict in There Will Be Blood, but that was definitely asking too much. Fanning’s role, like Gleeson’s, is unfortunately cut short just as it gets good.
I guess The Untouchables is starting to sound less like a guilty pleasure and more like a masterpiece when compared to this regrettable misfire.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
As a movie star, which, let’s face it, is George Clooney’s main and best job, we haven’t seen the guy for four years, since the largely underwhelming Money Monster. And, as a director, you’d be forgiven for thinking he hasn’t done anything for years, so unmemorable was 2017’s Suburbicon, with Matt Damon. It is a worrying trend of his entire career, that despite some genuine gold, and even a few diamonds here and there over the years, there are way more duds, with large pockets of “meh” thrown in.
The Netflix original movie The Midnight Sky was never going to be met with very high expectations, therefore. Although, it is testament to gorgeous George’s allure that we are still curious to at least see for ourselves what all the poor reviews are about. It seemed to be unanimous around the big voices that the main issue is that “nothing happens”. This does not worry me normally, as it quite often demonstrates how a 2020s audience, especially a Netflix one, has the attention span of a hungry vole in search of a fast worm followed by a quick nap! Patient story building and minimalism are not well regarded any more in the main. And that is a big problem for this film in finding an appreciative audience.
Clooney himself pitched it as Gravity meets The Revenant. Now, what you have done there, George, is set yourself up to be compared to two works of relative genius, both with far bigger budgets and the actual big screen in mind, not the “yes, it’s still a movie, but it is made for TV and phones” phenomenon. So it is bound to suffer in any critique. It didn’t stand a chance.
OK, it is ponderously slow. Fact. And there are moments when staring at Clooney’s extremely compelling beard is the most interesting thing to do with your brain or eyes in that moment. But to say nothing happens is erroneously unfair – Augustine is dying, and alone, in a world that has destroyed itself in an unspecified way. As he navigates a nightmare landscape of ice and his own diminishing sanity his subconscious creates an ethereal presence to guide him to his “essential” purpose: getting a message to a distant space station not to return to Earth under any circumstances.
Whilst not remotely original, and borrowing from the previously specified references in big, obvious ways (as well as Solaris, which GC didn’t mention, but its influence is apparent, both the Soderburgh and Tarkovsky versions), the heart of the idea isn’t anywhere near as weak as the naysayers would have you believe. If, in fact, you tune in to Clooney’s fine, sensitive performance, whilst reading between the lines of emotion and meaning, it is quite a satisfying tale. Yes, with a lot of problems, not least of all in momentum and the excitement you might expect from a sci-fi. But it isn’t “bad”, per se. Merely ponderous.
As for those up in space, including the always watchable and wonderful Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo, and Kyle Chandler, their lot is much more difficult than the Earthbound sequences. Caught between budget CGI and sets, and trapped in recreations of better space films, they simply don’t have the script to create any atmosphere or chemistry between themselves. Including an excruciating sing-along sequence that serves no purpose other than to make you cringe! The shame then is that we never feel like they are worth saving, which makes Augustine’s efforts feel futile and hollow – maybe something Clooney as director wanted to convey… but he shouldn’t have done it by making us care absolutely zero about those being saved.
Ultimately, it is an admirable failure in many ways, and not worth an earnest recommendation. It is another flop for Clooney as director. But there is just enough beauty and fragility in what Clooney is doing as an actor to make it far from a complete waste of time. Yes, it is a further example of Netflix producing something that feels churned out and corner cutting, rather than a fully rounded work that has all the framework a big cinema release would receive. It just isn’t quite as bad as the reviews suggest.
The Netflix original movie The Midnight Sky was never going to be met with very high expectations, therefore. Although, it is testament to gorgeous George’s allure that we are still curious to at least see for ourselves what all the poor reviews are about. It seemed to be unanimous around the big voices that the main issue is that “nothing happens”. This does not worry me normally, as it quite often demonstrates how a 2020s audience, especially a Netflix one, has the attention span of a hungry vole in search of a fast worm followed by a quick nap! Patient story building and minimalism are not well regarded any more in the main. And that is a big problem for this film in finding an appreciative audience.
Clooney himself pitched it as Gravity meets The Revenant. Now, what you have done there, George, is set yourself up to be compared to two works of relative genius, both with far bigger budgets and the actual big screen in mind, not the “yes, it’s still a movie, but it is made for TV and phones” phenomenon. So it is bound to suffer in any critique. It didn’t stand a chance.
OK, it is ponderously slow. Fact. And there are moments when staring at Clooney’s extremely compelling beard is the most interesting thing to do with your brain or eyes in that moment. But to say nothing happens is erroneously unfair – Augustine is dying, and alone, in a world that has destroyed itself in an unspecified way. As he navigates a nightmare landscape of ice and his own diminishing sanity his subconscious creates an ethereal presence to guide him to his “essential” purpose: getting a message to a distant space station not to return to Earth under any circumstances.
Whilst not remotely original, and borrowing from the previously specified references in big, obvious ways (as well as Solaris, which GC didn’t mention, but its influence is apparent, both the Soderburgh and Tarkovsky versions), the heart of the idea isn’t anywhere near as weak as the naysayers would have you believe. If, in fact, you tune in to Clooney’s fine, sensitive performance, whilst reading between the lines of emotion and meaning, it is quite a satisfying tale. Yes, with a lot of problems, not least of all in momentum and the excitement you might expect from a sci-fi. But it isn’t “bad”, per se. Merely ponderous.
As for those up in space, including the always watchable and wonderful Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo, and Kyle Chandler, their lot is much more difficult than the Earthbound sequences. Caught between budget CGI and sets, and trapped in recreations of better space films, they simply don’t have the script to create any atmosphere or chemistry between themselves. Including an excruciating sing-along sequence that serves no purpose other than to make you cringe! The shame then is that we never feel like they are worth saving, which makes Augustine’s efforts feel futile and hollow – maybe something Clooney as director wanted to convey… but he shouldn’t have done it by making us care absolutely zero about those being saved.
Ultimately, it is an admirable failure in many ways, and not worth an earnest recommendation. It is another flop for Clooney as director. But there is just enough beauty and fragility in what Clooney is doing as an actor to make it far from a complete waste of time. Yes, it is a further example of Netflix producing something that feels churned out and corner cutting, rather than a fully rounded work that has all the framework a big cinema release would receive. It just isn’t quite as bad as the reviews suggest.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Matt Damon asked Christian Bale how he had managed to lose almost 70lbs for his role as Ken Miles, following his chubbing up to play Dick Cheney in Vice the previous year. Bale just smiled, shrugged and said, “I didn’t eat”. Such is his reputation for playing real people with 100% commitment, apocryphal or not, I totally believe that is true.
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Death By Rock and Roll by The Pretty Reckless
Album
Rock 'n' roll is a religion. It's a commitment to an ideal, a belief system. The lifestyle and...