Search
Search results
Bird (1704 KP) rated Nocturnal Animals (2016) in Movies
Jul 23, 2017
A gripping plot that will have you desperate to watch and not watch simultaneously (2 more)
From the opening credit, the film is stylish and immersive
The usual top-grade performance from Gylenhall is supplemented by other strong performances, especially Michael Shannon
Gripping, brutal, and beautifully shot
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Nocturnal Animals (2016) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
Jake Gyllenhaal (2 more)
Michael Shannon
Aaron Johnson
Overrated (1 more)
Amy Adams
The Disturbing Side of The Mind's Eye
When this movie was released, critics were falling over themselves to praise it and while I did enjoy certain aspects of the movie, as a whole I feel that it is quite overrated. The movie is split into two sections, the real world and the fictional world that takes place within the book that Gyllenhaal's character is writing. The story that takes place within the book is gripping and exciting, but the artsy real world setting annoyed me everytime that they cut back to it, I also found Amy Adams to be quite wooden in this performance. The stand out in the movie is definitely Michael Shannon and he steals every single scene that he is in.
David McK (3540 KP) rated Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020 (Updated Apr 10, 2023)
The last truly enjoyable Robin Hood movie, mostly because of Alan Rickman's sneering and preening Sheriff of Nottingham ("no more merciful beheadings, and call off Christmas!"), even if Costner can't do an English accent ("This is true English courage", said with a Californian drawl), that it has no understanding of English geography (apparently Nottingham is only a few miles walk from Dover) or that it is darker than you remember (ending with, essentially, an attempted rape scene).
For all that, however, this - at least - attempted to deepen and add some context to the Robin Hood legend - I think this may be the first where Robin returns from the Crusades with as Moorish companion? - and has a killer soundtrack by both Michael Kamen (especially the overture) and Bryan Adams (with *that* song in the end credits).
For all that, however, this - at least - attempted to deepen and add some context to the Robin Hood legend - I think this may be the first where Robin returns from the Crusades with as Moorish companion? - and has a killer soundtrack by both Michael Kamen (especially the overture) and Bryan Adams (with *that* song in the end credits).
Awix (3310 KP) rated Torture Garden (1967) in Movies
Jul 12, 2020
Yet another Amicus horror anthology in which a mysterious stranger tells a mixed bag of actors their fortunes, all of which turn out to be grim. Michael Bryant gets over-familiar with his dead uncle's cat, Beverley Adams learns the dark secret of the Hollywood A-list, Barbara Ewing falls for a man who loves his piano, and it's mutual, and Jack Palance discovers that Peter Cushing owns the ultimate Edgar Allen Poe collectible.
Written by Robert Bloch, which may explain why it's a bit less cartoony than some of these films, and the final twist is not actually the usual one. However, the decision to go with four stories rather than the five or so does slow the film down a bit and there's a bit of meandering about in some of them before we get to the punchline. In the end, there are some good bits: Burgess Meredith's performance is fun and the moment where one character is attacked by a musical instrument has a sort of kitsch grandeur to it. But other films in this series as livelier and more fun. (I should say: not much torture, even less gardening.)
Written by Robert Bloch, which may explain why it's a bit less cartoony than some of these films, and the final twist is not actually the usual one. However, the decision to go with four stories rather than the five or so does slow the film down a bit and there's a bit of meandering about in some of them before we get to the punchline. In the end, there are some good bits: Burgess Meredith's performance is fun and the moment where one character is attacked by a musical instrument has a sort of kitsch grandeur to it. But other films in this series as livelier and more fun. (I should say: not much torture, even less gardening.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nocturnal Animals (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the crisis into mid-life crisis.
“Do you think your life has turned into something you never intended?” So asks Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) to her young assistant, who obviously looks baffled. “Of course, not – you’re still young”. Susan is in a mid-life crisis. While successful within the opulent Los Angeles art scene her personal life is crashing to the ground around her: her marriage (to Hutton (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) ) appears to be cooling fast amid financial worries.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated State of Play (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the corridors of the nation’s capital, Washington D.C. alliances and wheeling and dealing are the name of the game. With billions if not trillions of dollars hinging on new laws and policy, corporations clearly have an interest in which way the political winds are leaning and how it will affect their all important bottom line.
In the political thriller “State of Play”, Director Kevin MacDonald has combined a stellar cast with a strong script from Tony Gilroy, Billy Ray, and Matthew Michael Carnahan to craft one of the best dramas since Gilroy’s “Michael Clayton”.
When the lead researcher of Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), dies in an accident, it is a devastating blow to the young Congressman as he prepares for a series of hearings intended to cull the growth of a private security firm.
What is at first listed as an accident raises suspicion in veteran news reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe), who has had a long friendship, with Collins. Despite tension in recent years, Collins turns to Cal when it is revealed that he had an affair with his researcher. As Cal looks into the story he is under pressure from his editor (Helen Mirren), to deliver a story to keep the papers new owners happy. If this was not bad enough, Cal is also dogged by an online reporter for the paper named Della (Rachael McAdams), who is looking to make a name for herself at the paper.
Cal soon learns that the assistant was killed in what was made to look like an accident, and that a shooting incident that occurred prior to the death may be related to the murder.
Cal teams up with Della and soon learns that some very big players may be involved and that they will stop at nothing to protect their secret.
In a race against time, Cal and Della must get to the bottom of the mystery and stay alive. Unsure who to trust and which way their leads will follow, Cal and Della look for the answers that unaware that the quest they have undertaken will affect the halls of power as well as the very nation itself.
“State of Play” is a very tight thriller that is filled with twists and turns. The characters are interesting and well developed and the performances are first rate. Crowe is powerful as the determined Cal and works well with Affleck and Adams. Robin Wright Penn and Helen Mirren also give very strong performances.
The story of the film seems ripped from the headlines and has an eerie sense of reality to it, and works much better than “The International” attempted to do with its conspiracy premise.
While I have avoided as many spoilers as I could, suffice it to say that the film does have a deep plot that twists and turns to a rewarding conclusion and will keep your attention. I would hope that the fine work in this film is not forgotten when the Oscars come up next.
In the political thriller “State of Play”, Director Kevin MacDonald has combined a stellar cast with a strong script from Tony Gilroy, Billy Ray, and Matthew Michael Carnahan to craft one of the best dramas since Gilroy’s “Michael Clayton”.
When the lead researcher of Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), dies in an accident, it is a devastating blow to the young Congressman as he prepares for a series of hearings intended to cull the growth of a private security firm.
What is at first listed as an accident raises suspicion in veteran news reporter Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe), who has had a long friendship, with Collins. Despite tension in recent years, Collins turns to Cal when it is revealed that he had an affair with his researcher. As Cal looks into the story he is under pressure from his editor (Helen Mirren), to deliver a story to keep the papers new owners happy. If this was not bad enough, Cal is also dogged by an online reporter for the paper named Della (Rachael McAdams), who is looking to make a name for herself at the paper.
Cal soon learns that the assistant was killed in what was made to look like an accident, and that a shooting incident that occurred prior to the death may be related to the murder.
Cal teams up with Della and soon learns that some very big players may be involved and that they will stop at nothing to protect their secret.
In a race against time, Cal and Della must get to the bottom of the mystery and stay alive. Unsure who to trust and which way their leads will follow, Cal and Della look for the answers that unaware that the quest they have undertaken will affect the halls of power as well as the very nation itself.
“State of Play” is a very tight thriller that is filled with twists and turns. The characters are interesting and well developed and the performances are first rate. Crowe is powerful as the determined Cal and works well with Affleck and Adams. Robin Wright Penn and Helen Mirren also give very strong performances.
The story of the film seems ripped from the headlines and has an eerie sense of reality to it, and works much better than “The International” attempted to do with its conspiracy premise.
While I have avoided as many spoilers as I could, suffice it to say that the film does have a deep plot that twists and turns to a rewarding conclusion and will keep your attention. I would hope that the fine work in this film is not forgotten when the Oscars come up next.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stowaway (2021) in Movies
Apr 30, 2021
Good physics but otherwise bland and forgettable
In "Stowaway", three astronauts - Commander Marina Bartlett (Toni Collette), doctor and scientist Zoe Levensen (Anna Kendrick) and scientist David Kim (Daniel Dae Kim) - have left earth on a mission to Mars. Bartlett is a bit surprised when she removes an overhead panel and technician Michael Adams (Shamier Anderson) falls out on her, injuring her arm.
This is problematic. The ship was designed for two (with the specs pushed for three - - ed: really???!). With oxygen levels depleting, the crew are left with some difficult decisions to make.
Positives:
- For once, I have no issues with the physics of this sci-fi movie! As a PhD physicist by training, you will generally hear me huffing and puffing in sci-fi movies about loud noises in space; implausible decompressions; and the like. But here, I really liked the design of the spaceship and its implementation of artificial gravity. No massive and wasteful 'wheel' construction as in "2001: A Space Odyssey" here. Just units on the ends of a sufficiently long tether to get the right G.
- Equally - again physics related - the 'climb' and 'descent' scenes are nicely executed.
- Toni Collette adds gravitas to the (otherwise OK) cast. Shamier Anderson is also good in his emotional scenes. And the ensemble works well enough together.
Negatives:
- The screenplay is so vanilla and linear in its storytelling that you could ask me what happened in this movie in six months time and I think I would struggle to answer. When the 'stowaway' was discovered, my mind went crazy with options: was he there by accident? (which I don't think can strictly be defined as a "stowaway"); had he smuggled himself on-board deliberately?; did he have nefarious intentions towards the crew or the mission?; when push came to shove, would the 'short-straw' candidate fight back? Literally NONE of this was explored. True that we have a "will they survive" story, as the oxygen depletes, but this has been done much better in films like "Apollo 13" (with CO2 instead of O2).
- Sorry. I've never been a fan of Anna Kendrick. She's fine in fluffier fare like "Pitch Perfect" and "A Simple Favor". But as the brave and all action heroine here, I didn't buy it.
- Why have Toni Collette in a movie if you are going to give her so little to do?
Summary Thoughts on "Stowaway":
I've seen a number of extremely positive reviews of this one, which I've found a bit mystifying. I really like Sci-fi films, and particularly space-based sci-fi flicks. But this was all very "meh" for me. The premise was full of potential, but failed to deliver on much of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/30/stowaway-bland-and-forgettable-sci-fi-fare/. Thanks.).
This is problematic. The ship was designed for two (with the specs pushed for three - - ed: really???!). With oxygen levels depleting, the crew are left with some difficult decisions to make.
Positives:
- For once, I have no issues with the physics of this sci-fi movie! As a PhD physicist by training, you will generally hear me huffing and puffing in sci-fi movies about loud noises in space; implausible decompressions; and the like. But here, I really liked the design of the spaceship and its implementation of artificial gravity. No massive and wasteful 'wheel' construction as in "2001: A Space Odyssey" here. Just units on the ends of a sufficiently long tether to get the right G.
- Equally - again physics related - the 'climb' and 'descent' scenes are nicely executed.
- Toni Collette adds gravitas to the (otherwise OK) cast. Shamier Anderson is also good in his emotional scenes. And the ensemble works well enough together.
Negatives:
- The screenplay is so vanilla and linear in its storytelling that you could ask me what happened in this movie in six months time and I think I would struggle to answer. When the 'stowaway' was discovered, my mind went crazy with options: was he there by accident? (which I don't think can strictly be defined as a "stowaway"); had he smuggled himself on-board deliberately?; did he have nefarious intentions towards the crew or the mission?; when push came to shove, would the 'short-straw' candidate fight back? Literally NONE of this was explored. True that we have a "will they survive" story, as the oxygen depletes, but this has been done much better in films like "Apollo 13" (with CO2 instead of O2).
- Sorry. I've never been a fan of Anna Kendrick. She's fine in fluffier fare like "Pitch Perfect" and "A Simple Favor". But as the brave and all action heroine here, I didn't buy it.
- Why have Toni Collette in a movie if you are going to give her so little to do?
Summary Thoughts on "Stowaway":
I've seen a number of extremely positive reviews of this one, which I've found a bit mystifying. I really like Sci-fi films, and particularly space-based sci-fi flicks. But this was all very "meh" for me. The premise was full of potential, but failed to deliver on much of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/30/stowaway-bland-and-forgettable-sci-fi-fare/. Thanks.).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bewitched (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Turning a classic television series into a feature film can be a risky proposition. While the built in audience of Baby Boomers and new fans of a show gained through reruns make remakes a potentially lucrative venture, the task of recasting classic characters and modernizing the story to today’s audiences is rife with hazards.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.
For example, for every remake that succeeds, such as The Adams Family, Starsky and Hutch, and The Brady Bunch, there are countless others that fail, like The Wild Wild West, Car 54 Where Are You and I-Spy.
Sadly the new film version of Bewitched falls into the latter category. It is so bad it begs the question as to why such talents like Nicole Kidman, Michael Caine, and Will Ferrell signed on.
The story centers on Isabel Bigelow (Nicole Kidman), a young woman who is anxious to set off on her own and leave the family structure behind her. While this is not so uncommon for most people, Isabel is a witch and her decision to live as a mortal without her powers is of great consternation to her father (Michael Caine).
Isabel is convinced she can find a man, and can live in happiness and love with a mortal. She wants no part of the shallow and wandering eye that makes up their lifestyle. Convinced his daughter will never be able to live without her powers, her father chides her for her frequent and casual use of powers to do everything from find and furnish her home to paying for everyday needs.
At roughly the same time, fading actor Jack Wyatt is about to sign up to play the male lead in a new television version of the classic Bewitched television series. With the gigantic failure of his recent film, Jack is in need of a hit. Not wanting to take any attention away from his star turn, Jack insists that the producers cast a complete unknown in the role of Samantha. He does not want anyone infringing upon his spotlight.
A chance encounter with Isabel leads to her being cast by Jack in the new series. Isabel is taken by Jack and when she learns the role is that of a witch, she signs aboard despite some reservations.
Naturally Jack and Isabel will hit it off, and yes there will be issues, particularly when Jack’s shallow nature becomes clear to Isabel, and this is to say nothing of Isabel’s true identity which in and of itself is an issue.
What starts as a good premise with a solid cast quickly dissolves into a disjointed mess thanks to a paper thin plot that is rife with plot holes, non-sequitors, and unresolved moments. One such example is the character of Iris Smythson (Shirley Mac Laine), who plays Endora on the show. It is at first hinted at that she too is a witch and then made obvious. However there is no conclusion to this revelation. We see that she has a power and uses it, but we never really get the why she is there, how she chose to live as she does, and how her relationship with Isabel’s father is going to be altered by this.
Another problem the show has is that Ferell is reduced to running around, over-acting to get laughs. The situations go on way to long, and things that are at first amusing, become tedious after a while. One such scene has Ferell’s character appearing nude on a live television appearance. It is something that is used to generate laughs but there is no setup to the scene and it plays out as a desperate attempt to get laughs.
The only thing that works is the charm of Kidman who, as the quirky Isabel, is delightful, as is the supporting work of Caine and Steve Carell as Uncle Arthur. Sadly they are the only good things in a film that became so bad that many in the audience at my press screener were voicing their disdain when we left the film. Perhaps Samantha can twitch her nose and make this one vanish, as there is precious little to redeem it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Transformers of the superhero genre
It feels like eons ago that Batman v Superman was announced as a genuine movie. Way back in 2007 there was a poster that seemed to signify DC Comic’s plans in I am Legend, but fans just thought of it as a pipedream.
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/