Search
Search results
JT (287 KP) rated Takers (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
The bank heist, it’s been done to death in Hollywood over the years but it still seems to be a film favourite. You’d be hard pressed to find a really bad one out there and most of the ones that I have seen have been exceptional films.
Of course they all follow a very similar pattern. Group steals money, plan one last job which will inevitable go wrong where someone will get double crossed and not everyone walks off into the sunset with the money.Its a no brainer really and only an idiot could really mess up that style of plot.
Takers is no different from any other before it, the cast here seem to be a bit mismatched in places. There are real life rappers Chris Brown and T.I. aka Clifford Joseph Harris Jr., eye candy favourites Matt Dillon and Paul Walker with Brit Idris Elba making it the most unconventional mix of cops and robbers ever.
The film’s highlights are the well choreographed set pieces including a decent hotel gun fight, a hiest that goes wrong leading to more gun play, and an impressive chase through the city. Even the opening does well to set the story and character back grounds.
Where the film let’s itself down, through no fault of its own, is the way in which we are always one step ahead of the plot. This is just down to all the hiest films we have seen before and we’re pretty much going to make our own assumptions as to what is going to happen and who is going to get away with what at the climax.
There are a couple of wasted back stories which do little to the film such as Matt Dillon’s corrupt partner or Idris Elba’s crackhead sister. Zoe Saldana is a virtual unknown in this and pops up from time to time doing nothing but enlighten the screen with her clear beauty.
It’s never going to compete against the big boys such as Heat, Point Break or The Town, but it does well enough to hold the attention for 90 minutes or so.
Of course they all follow a very similar pattern. Group steals money, plan one last job which will inevitable go wrong where someone will get double crossed and not everyone walks off into the sunset with the money.Its a no brainer really and only an idiot could really mess up that style of plot.
Takers is no different from any other before it, the cast here seem to be a bit mismatched in places. There are real life rappers Chris Brown and T.I. aka Clifford Joseph Harris Jr., eye candy favourites Matt Dillon and Paul Walker with Brit Idris Elba making it the most unconventional mix of cops and robbers ever.
The film’s highlights are the well choreographed set pieces including a decent hotel gun fight, a hiest that goes wrong leading to more gun play, and an impressive chase through the city. Even the opening does well to set the story and character back grounds.
Where the film let’s itself down, through no fault of its own, is the way in which we are always one step ahead of the plot. This is just down to all the hiest films we have seen before and we’re pretty much going to make our own assumptions as to what is going to happen and who is going to get away with what at the climax.
There are a couple of wasted back stories which do little to the film such as Matt Dillon’s corrupt partner or Idris Elba’s crackhead sister. Zoe Saldana is a virtual unknown in this and pops up from time to time doing nothing but enlighten the screen with her clear beauty.
It’s never going to compete against the big boys such as Heat, Point Break or The Town, but it does well enough to hold the attention for 90 minutes or so.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Morbius (2022) in Movies
Jul 7, 2022
It's Not Bad...It's Stupid
“It’s not as bad as you heard”, is certainly the very definition of damning something with faint praise, but that is exactly the right thing to say about the 2022 Sony Comic Book Film Adaptation of MORBIUS.
Starring Jared Leto, MORBIUS follows the origin story - and first adventure - of Spiderman villain Morbius who, inexplicably, becomes the hero in this story.
While, ultimately, not a good film, there are some good things happening here, so let’s begin there.
The lead performance by Jared Leto as Dr. Michael Morbius is - very surprisingly - somewhat grounded in reality. Leto is not one to be subtle in his character choices (see HOUSE OF GUCCI) but in this one, he is (somewhat) reserved. It would have been easy for Leto to go over the top with this character, but he wisely chooses the opposite route…and it works. The always watchable Jared Harris (CHERNOBYL) is on-board in the “mentor” role while Tyrese Gibson and Al Madrigal bring some humor to the proceedings as “Agents” who are chasing after Morbius. The rest of the cast are benign - neither adding nor detracting from the proceedings - with the exception of Matt Smith (LAST NIGHT IN SOHO) who’s character is so badly written that he flounders under the weight of the absurdity of what his character is tasked with.
Trying to overcome the ridiculousness of the story is the Direction by Daniel Espinosa (the Denzel Washington action flick SAFE HOUSE). He moves the action along quickly, never really lingering on the absurdities of the events going on (and there are PLENTY of absurdities to avoid - more on that later) and Espinosa actually has an artistic vision of what he wanted to accomplish visually in this comic-book film, freezing many frames when the picture on the screen looked like a page from a graphic novel. It’s a smart choice for a film that can only be described as dumb.
And dumb this film is. I kept feeling any sense of common sense and reality slip away as this film - written by Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless - quickly devolved into the absurd and ridiculous. One does have to suspend belief when watching Comic Book films (how else are we going to believe that a man can turn into a human spider) but in this case, the suspension is mighty - it is one of the dumbest films ever made (in terms of plot and situations) and that is saying something. The makers of this film really stretch the term “go with me here” as Morbius is constantly chasing and evolving and being chased in the most absurd ways throughout this film with special effects that add to the absurdity of the proceedings. To be fair, this film never falls into the “so bad it’s good” range, it hovers just above that line.
The end credits scenes start to setup a “Sinister Six” Spiderman film, so there is some hope for this - it would be interesting to see Leto’s Morbius team up with some other Spiderman villains (who’s names would be a spoiler), provided the script is better. There’s no way that it can be worse.
MORBIUS is not a bad film - it just will insult your intelligence.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starring Jared Leto, MORBIUS follows the origin story - and first adventure - of Spiderman villain Morbius who, inexplicably, becomes the hero in this story.
While, ultimately, not a good film, there are some good things happening here, so let’s begin there.
The lead performance by Jared Leto as Dr. Michael Morbius is - very surprisingly - somewhat grounded in reality. Leto is not one to be subtle in his character choices (see HOUSE OF GUCCI) but in this one, he is (somewhat) reserved. It would have been easy for Leto to go over the top with this character, but he wisely chooses the opposite route…and it works. The always watchable Jared Harris (CHERNOBYL) is on-board in the “mentor” role while Tyrese Gibson and Al Madrigal bring some humor to the proceedings as “Agents” who are chasing after Morbius. The rest of the cast are benign - neither adding nor detracting from the proceedings - with the exception of Matt Smith (LAST NIGHT IN SOHO) who’s character is so badly written that he flounders under the weight of the absurdity of what his character is tasked with.
Trying to overcome the ridiculousness of the story is the Direction by Daniel Espinosa (the Denzel Washington action flick SAFE HOUSE). He moves the action along quickly, never really lingering on the absurdities of the events going on (and there are PLENTY of absurdities to avoid - more on that later) and Espinosa actually has an artistic vision of what he wanted to accomplish visually in this comic-book film, freezing many frames when the picture on the screen looked like a page from a graphic novel. It’s a smart choice for a film that can only be described as dumb.
And dumb this film is. I kept feeling any sense of common sense and reality slip away as this film - written by Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless - quickly devolved into the absurd and ridiculous. One does have to suspend belief when watching Comic Book films (how else are we going to believe that a man can turn into a human spider) but in this case, the suspension is mighty - it is one of the dumbest films ever made (in terms of plot and situations) and that is saying something. The makers of this film really stretch the term “go with me here” as Morbius is constantly chasing and evolving and being chased in the most absurd ways throughout this film with special effects that add to the absurdity of the proceedings. To be fair, this film never falls into the “so bad it’s good” range, it hovers just above that line.
The end credits scenes start to setup a “Sinister Six” Spiderman film, so there is some hope for this - it would be interesting to see Leto’s Morbius team up with some other Spiderman villains (who’s names would be a spoiler), provided the script is better. There’s no way that it can be worse.
MORBIUS is not a bad film - it just will insult your intelligence.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Morbius (2022) in Movies
Apr 5, 2022
The latest Marvel offering is Morbius. Michael Morbius (Jared Leto) grew up in Greece under the care of Dr.Emil Nikols (Jared Harris). In this universe, Emil is Michael’s Mentor. This story takes
bits from the comic book but it clearly isn’t canon. It is an adequate anti-hero origin story for Phase 4 which gives us the backstory of Morbius’ creation.
Morbius has a rare blood disease. As a child, he made his best friend Milo/Lucien (Matt Smith), a promise to find the cure for their shared illness. Michael, in his quest for the cure, became the youngest scientist to win the Nobel Prize from his development of artificial blood.
He works with fellow scientist Martine Bancroft (Adria Arjona) who becomes his love interest.
Morbius has been working on vampire bats and the abilities within their blood. Once the formula has stabilized, he begins human trials on himself. In doing so, the serum that he has developed transforms him into a vampire that needs human blood to sustain his existence.
The film seems to have dropped the trail to lead the audience to logical conclusions. There are questions that need to be answered which would help flesh out the actions of the characters.
Why the serum, if the reason is to create a cure, why did the bat and human combination mutate instead of the blood changing?
There are points throughout the film that feel like critical explanatory lines were edited out.
Some scenes had witty banter between Michael and Milo. It would have been good to see Morbius enjoy his transformation from his weak, ill state to the Vampire.
The film was good. It definitely could have been better with more information. I wanted to understand motivation by the actors indicating motive or have red herrings thrown through the film.
The best parts for me were the moments where he stumbled upon his new abilities. He observes them like the scientist he is and takes it as data, in order to understand the changes.
The CGI was muddy, in trying to show movement as quick. What it looked like was trying to
convey speed, but in doing so, ended up having what showed up as squiggly lines instead.
I liked it, but didn’t love it mainly for what it seemed to lack, continuity. I think for an origin film, the character needs to be brought out as clean as possible in order to develop solid character traits.
If you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that lead into the Multiverse of Magic. I am definitely looking forward to that film.
3 stars out of 5
bits from the comic book but it clearly isn’t canon. It is an adequate anti-hero origin story for Phase 4 which gives us the backstory of Morbius’ creation.
Morbius has a rare blood disease. As a child, he made his best friend Milo/Lucien (Matt Smith), a promise to find the cure for their shared illness. Michael, in his quest for the cure, became the youngest scientist to win the Nobel Prize from his development of artificial blood.
He works with fellow scientist Martine Bancroft (Adria Arjona) who becomes his love interest.
Morbius has been working on vampire bats and the abilities within their blood. Once the formula has stabilized, he begins human trials on himself. In doing so, the serum that he has developed transforms him into a vampire that needs human blood to sustain his existence.
The film seems to have dropped the trail to lead the audience to logical conclusions. There are questions that need to be answered which would help flesh out the actions of the characters.
Why the serum, if the reason is to create a cure, why did the bat and human combination mutate instead of the blood changing?
There are points throughout the film that feel like critical explanatory lines were edited out.
Some scenes had witty banter between Michael and Milo. It would have been good to see Morbius enjoy his transformation from his weak, ill state to the Vampire.
The film was good. It definitely could have been better with more information. I wanted to understand motivation by the actors indicating motive or have red herrings thrown through the film.
The best parts for me were the moments where he stumbled upon his new abilities. He observes them like the scientist he is and takes it as data, in order to understand the changes.
The CGI was muddy, in trying to show movement as quick. What it looked like was trying to
convey speed, but in doing so, ended up having what showed up as squiggly lines instead.
I liked it, but didn’t love it mainly for what it seemed to lack, continuity. I think for an origin film, the character needs to be brought out as clean as possible in order to develop solid character traits.
If you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that lead into the Multiverse of Magic. I am definitely looking forward to that film.
3 stars out of 5
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
This little film has big shoes to fill
Alexander Payne was clearly vying for Oscars attention when it came to penning the screenplay for Downsizing. And why not, he’s certainly got form in the awards department. A two-time Oscar winner with a further three nominations, his films have been bold and topical.
That topical trademark shows no signs of dissipating with Downsizing, as Payne takes on the themes of overpopulation and the effects it’ll have on us in the future. But is the resulting film one of his best works? Or are we looking at a bit of a dud?
When scientists discover how to shrink humans to five inches tall as a solution to overpopulation, Paul (Matt Damon) and his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig) decide to abandon their cash-strapped and stressed lives in order to get small and move to a new downsized community — a choice that triggers life-changing adventures in more ways than one.
The film certainly gets off to a good start before it even begins. Just look at the cast! With Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Laura Dern, Christoph Waltz, Neil Patrick Harris and Jason Sudeikis being just some of the actors on the roster here, there’s certainly a lot of talent about. And things continue to look very good indeed.
Downsizing starts out great. In fact, it has one of the best first acts of any film I’ve seen as we are introduced to the concept of downsizing and the lives in which its partakers lead. Damon is a magnetic leading presence and oozes charm throughout the film. It’s also genuinely funny with a script that knows how to garner laughs from the audience without delving into unnecessary slapstick.
To look at, Downsizing is really rather lovely. Filled with clever special effects, it’s a pleasure to watch and fascinating to sit there and think about all the camera trickery required to pull it off. Watching a miniature ship pull bottles of vodka is strangely satisfying.
And then, about 45 minutes in, things start to go rapidly downhill. So downhill that I left the cinema wondering how on earth a movie that began so positively, could result in a middle and final act so disappointingly ordinary. On the journey home, I used that time to think of the reasons.
That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end
Firstly, that talented cast I spoke about earlier is completely and utterly wasted. Outside of Damon, each of the brilliant actors is given a glorified cameo that makes little-to-no difference on the final outcome. Laura Dern is in the film for less than 3 minutes – in fact, her scene is exactly what you see in the trailer. Christoph Waltz plays a bizarre Serbian playboy who is funny and irritating in equal measure and the less said about Kristen Wiig’s part the better.
Secondly, the story just doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise. We get a vague environmental message about the beauty of nature and the fragility of life, but the idea of downsizing and the beautiful residences of “Leisureland” are merely a shell for Damon to go from scene to scene. His adventures with Hong Chau, which make up the bulk of the overstuffed 132-minute runtime, are pleasant enough, but we want to see more of the people who have decided to shrink themselves.
Thirdly, the tone is an absolute mess. Is it a comedy? What about a drama? Perhaps a rom-com? Who knows! That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end.
Finally, the ending is absolutely dreadful and one of the worst ever put to film. I’m not sure if Payne thought it would be a good idea to leave the movie open to a sequel but there is absolutely no payoff to the previous 130-or-so minutes whatsoever. It just falls flat.
Overall, Downsizing has a brilliant premise and a wonderfully talented cast, but each of those is wasted and that’s unforgivable. What starts out as a clever piece of social commentary about the issues we, as a species, currently face, ends up becoming one of the most ordinary films you’ll ever see and a bit of a misstep for the usually superb Alexander Payne. It’s certainly his worst film to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/27/downsizing-review-this-little-film-has-big-shoes-to-fill/
That topical trademark shows no signs of dissipating with Downsizing, as Payne takes on the themes of overpopulation and the effects it’ll have on us in the future. But is the resulting film one of his best works? Or are we looking at a bit of a dud?
When scientists discover how to shrink humans to five inches tall as a solution to overpopulation, Paul (Matt Damon) and his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig) decide to abandon their cash-strapped and stressed lives in order to get small and move to a new downsized community — a choice that triggers life-changing adventures in more ways than one.
The film certainly gets off to a good start before it even begins. Just look at the cast! With Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Laura Dern, Christoph Waltz, Neil Patrick Harris and Jason Sudeikis being just some of the actors on the roster here, there’s certainly a lot of talent about. And things continue to look very good indeed.
Downsizing starts out great. In fact, it has one of the best first acts of any film I’ve seen as we are introduced to the concept of downsizing and the lives in which its partakers lead. Damon is a magnetic leading presence and oozes charm throughout the film. It’s also genuinely funny with a script that knows how to garner laughs from the audience without delving into unnecessary slapstick.
To look at, Downsizing is really rather lovely. Filled with clever special effects, it’s a pleasure to watch and fascinating to sit there and think about all the camera trickery required to pull it off. Watching a miniature ship pull bottles of vodka is strangely satisfying.
And then, about 45 minutes in, things start to go rapidly downhill. So downhill that I left the cinema wondering how on earth a movie that began so positively, could result in a middle and final act so disappointingly ordinary. On the journey home, I used that time to think of the reasons.
That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end
Firstly, that talented cast I spoke about earlier is completely and utterly wasted. Outside of Damon, each of the brilliant actors is given a glorified cameo that makes little-to-no difference on the final outcome. Laura Dern is in the film for less than 3 minutes – in fact, her scene is exactly what you see in the trailer. Christoph Waltz plays a bizarre Serbian playboy who is funny and irritating in equal measure and the less said about Kristen Wiig’s part the better.
Secondly, the story just doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise. We get a vague environmental message about the beauty of nature and the fragility of life, but the idea of downsizing and the beautiful residences of “Leisureland” are merely a shell for Damon to go from scene to scene. His adventures with Hong Chau, which make up the bulk of the overstuffed 132-minute runtime, are pleasant enough, but we want to see more of the people who have decided to shrink themselves.
Thirdly, the tone is an absolute mess. Is it a comedy? What about a drama? Perhaps a rom-com? Who knows! That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end.
Finally, the ending is absolutely dreadful and one of the worst ever put to film. I’m not sure if Payne thought it would be a good idea to leave the movie open to a sequel but there is absolutely no payoff to the previous 130-or-so minutes whatsoever. It just falls flat.
Overall, Downsizing has a brilliant premise and a wonderfully talented cast, but each of those is wasted and that’s unforgivable. What starts out as a clever piece of social commentary about the issues we, as a species, currently face, ends up becoming one of the most ordinary films you’ll ever see and a bit of a misstep for the usually superb Alexander Payne. It’s certainly his worst film to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/27/downsizing-review-this-little-film-has-big-shoes-to-fill/
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!