Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
This one belongs to James Spader
I doubt that Joss Whedon and the team down at Marvel knew just how successful 2012’s Avengers Assemble would go on to be. After just a few months of release it became the third highest-grossing film of all time, by no means an easy feat to achieve.
Therefore, Whedon and co had their work cut out trying to build on the solid foundations they had laid when it came to producing a sequel. However, three years and $250m later Avengers: Age of Ultron hits our screens. But is it the follow-up everyone was asking for?
Age of Ultron follows the dynamic team of superheroes as they continue to save the world following the near cataclysmic events of the 2009 predecessor and of course every Marvel film released since. Here however, they are tasked with taking down a robot hell bent on destroying the world – a tough day at the office to say the least.
All the fan favourites return as well as some new faces in a film that is technically spectacular but a little overambitious at times. There are 11, count them 11, major characters vying for screen time in Age of Ultron and while Whedon manages to give each of them their own story arc, at times it feels a little rushed.
Joining the cast is James Spader as the voice of Ultron, a robot accidentally created by Tony Stark, and he is by far the most intriguing character in an already impressive line-up. Robert Downey Jr. continues to be on fine form as the wise-cracking Iron Man/Stark with Chris Hemsworth providing the eye-candy as Thor.
It’s also nice to see Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner’s Black Widow and Hawkeye get some much-needed fleshing out after their fairly limited roles in previous Marvel films, and Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk is a joy to watch.
Kick-Ass’ Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Godzilla’s Elizabeth Olsen also join the cast as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, two characters fans of the X-Men universe will recognise. However, due to legal requirements their origins are changed and the fact that they are mutants is never revealed, unfortunately limiting their appeal.
When it comes to special effects, Whedon has made sure every sequence is brimming with the highest quality CGI, and despite a couple of lapses early on in the film, the majority of the picture is flawless with some stunning global locations beautifully juxtaposed with the characters doing their thing.
What stands out in Age of Ultron however is the plot. Avengers Assemble was a fine film right up until the generic city-levelling, headache inducing climax that looked like it could have come straight out of a Michael Bay movie.
Thankfully, whilst the action is dialled up a few notches here, the plot is much more detailed and the final scenes are utterly breath-taking.
Overall, Avengers: Age of Ultron had a massive amount to live up to and in some respects it falls a little short, its overambitious nature is its downfall with too many characters needing screen time. However, as a good-time blockbuster it’s hard to find one better and James Spader is genuinely mesmerising as Ultron.
Is it the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Well, it’s definitely an improvement on its predecessor – but for me, Guardians of the Galaxy just takes that title by a whisker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/26/this-one-belongs-to-james-spader-avengers-age-of-ultron-review/
Therefore, Whedon and co had their work cut out trying to build on the solid foundations they had laid when it came to producing a sequel. However, three years and $250m later Avengers: Age of Ultron hits our screens. But is it the follow-up everyone was asking for?
Age of Ultron follows the dynamic team of superheroes as they continue to save the world following the near cataclysmic events of the 2009 predecessor and of course every Marvel film released since. Here however, they are tasked with taking down a robot hell bent on destroying the world – a tough day at the office to say the least.
All the fan favourites return as well as some new faces in a film that is technically spectacular but a little overambitious at times. There are 11, count them 11, major characters vying for screen time in Age of Ultron and while Whedon manages to give each of them their own story arc, at times it feels a little rushed.
Joining the cast is James Spader as the voice of Ultron, a robot accidentally created by Tony Stark, and he is by far the most intriguing character in an already impressive line-up. Robert Downey Jr. continues to be on fine form as the wise-cracking Iron Man/Stark with Chris Hemsworth providing the eye-candy as Thor.
It’s also nice to see Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner’s Black Widow and Hawkeye get some much-needed fleshing out after their fairly limited roles in previous Marvel films, and Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk is a joy to watch.
Kick-Ass’ Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Godzilla’s Elizabeth Olsen also join the cast as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, two characters fans of the X-Men universe will recognise. However, due to legal requirements their origins are changed and the fact that they are mutants is never revealed, unfortunately limiting their appeal.
When it comes to special effects, Whedon has made sure every sequence is brimming with the highest quality CGI, and despite a couple of lapses early on in the film, the majority of the picture is flawless with some stunning global locations beautifully juxtaposed with the characters doing their thing.
What stands out in Age of Ultron however is the plot. Avengers Assemble was a fine film right up until the generic city-levelling, headache inducing climax that looked like it could have come straight out of a Michael Bay movie.
Thankfully, whilst the action is dialled up a few notches here, the plot is much more detailed and the final scenes are utterly breath-taking.
Overall, Avengers: Age of Ultron had a massive amount to live up to and in some respects it falls a little short, its overambitious nature is its downfall with too many characters needing screen time. However, as a good-time blockbuster it’s hard to find one better and James Spader is genuinely mesmerising as Ultron.
Is it the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Well, it’s definitely an improvement on its predecessor – but for me, Guardians of the Galaxy just takes that title by a whisker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/26/this-one-belongs-to-james-spader-avengers-age-of-ultron-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Stuber (2019) in Movies
Jul 18, 2019
Lack of chemistry between the leads
"Chemistry" is a tricky thing in a film and one that "either you got it or you don't" - it's an elusive element that can sink or raise a film. Case in point 2 films I have seen this week.
I rewatched the 1998 Crime/Romance flick OUT OF SIGHT - starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. I remembered this Steven Soderbergh directed film as "terrific" and was excited to show it to my bride. What I realized when watching it is that this is a middle-of-the-road film that is elevated by the tremendous (sexual) chemistry between Lopez and Clooney. It oozes off the screen and is palatable to the viewer.
On the other end of the scale is the recent Action/Comedy STUBER with comedian Kuamil Nanjiani (THE BIG SICK) and former pro wrestler Dave Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films). This is a middle-of-the-road film that is hurt (tremendously) by the LACK of chemistry between the two leads.
Nanjiani stars as Stu, a sad-sack Uber driver who does not stand up for himself while Bautista is a "nothing gets in my way" take charge cop who (because of recent eye surgery) cannot drive and hires an Uber driver, Stu (who gets called STUBER, hence the name of the film), to chase down clues to a criminal he's been on the hunt for - shenanigans ensue.
Individually, some of the scenes/scenarios of this film are fine/funny and Nanjiani is terrific as Stu and adds some clever comedic elements to a script that is "good enough" by Tripper Clancy.
And then there's Bautista.
He seems lost in this film, underplaying the things that make him good, his over-exuberance and over physicality (if that is a term) of someone of his size. Is this Bautista's fault or did Director Michael Dowse (GOON) purposely tone him down? It doesn't really matter for it doesn't really work.
And this is the beginning of the problem with the chemistry between the two leads - Nanjiani manic energy is not matched by Bautista - he seems to be an "energy sucker" and takes quite a bit of life out of this film. But...Director Dowse is also a problem, for he brings this lack of energy to quite a few of the big action scenes, underplaying, not overplaying what should have been over played.
There are some good things in this - besides the script and Nanjiani, Natalie Morales and Betty Gilpin are good and we do have a "Mira Sorvino sighting", which is welcome...but that's about it. Oh...except for an extended cameo by Karen Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS films) she brings some energy. I would have loved to see her paired with Nanjiani in this.
If you're looking for a good "buddy cop" film with good chemistry between the leads, might I suggest THE OTHER GUYS (Will Ferrell/Mark Wahlberg), RUNNING SCARED (Billy Crystal/Gregory Hines) or the greatest example of strong chemistry - 48 HOURS (Nick Nolte/Eddie Murphy). Stuber would be the example of just the opposite.
6 stars out of 10 (for Nanjiani, Gillan and Sorvino - and a script and circumstances that could have worked had the chemistry between the leads been better)
Letter Grade: B- and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I rewatched the 1998 Crime/Romance flick OUT OF SIGHT - starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. I remembered this Steven Soderbergh directed film as "terrific" and was excited to show it to my bride. What I realized when watching it is that this is a middle-of-the-road film that is elevated by the tremendous (sexual) chemistry between Lopez and Clooney. It oozes off the screen and is palatable to the viewer.
On the other end of the scale is the recent Action/Comedy STUBER with comedian Kuamil Nanjiani (THE BIG SICK) and former pro wrestler Dave Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films). This is a middle-of-the-road film that is hurt (tremendously) by the LACK of chemistry between the two leads.
Nanjiani stars as Stu, a sad-sack Uber driver who does not stand up for himself while Bautista is a "nothing gets in my way" take charge cop who (because of recent eye surgery) cannot drive and hires an Uber driver, Stu (who gets called STUBER, hence the name of the film), to chase down clues to a criminal he's been on the hunt for - shenanigans ensue.
Individually, some of the scenes/scenarios of this film are fine/funny and Nanjiani is terrific as Stu and adds some clever comedic elements to a script that is "good enough" by Tripper Clancy.
And then there's Bautista.
He seems lost in this film, underplaying the things that make him good, his over-exuberance and over physicality (if that is a term) of someone of his size. Is this Bautista's fault or did Director Michael Dowse (GOON) purposely tone him down? It doesn't really matter for it doesn't really work.
And this is the beginning of the problem with the chemistry between the two leads - Nanjiani manic energy is not matched by Bautista - he seems to be an "energy sucker" and takes quite a bit of life out of this film. But...Director Dowse is also a problem, for he brings this lack of energy to quite a few of the big action scenes, underplaying, not overplaying what should have been over played.
There are some good things in this - besides the script and Nanjiani, Natalie Morales and Betty Gilpin are good and we do have a "Mira Sorvino sighting", which is welcome...but that's about it. Oh...except for an extended cameo by Karen Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS films) she brings some energy. I would have loved to see her paired with Nanjiani in this.
If you're looking for a good "buddy cop" film with good chemistry between the leads, might I suggest THE OTHER GUYS (Will Ferrell/Mark Wahlberg), RUNNING SCARED (Billy Crystal/Gregory Hines) or the greatest example of strong chemistry - 48 HOURS (Nick Nolte/Eddie Murphy). Stuber would be the example of just the opposite.
6 stars out of 10 (for Nanjiani, Gillan and Sorvino - and a script and circumstances that could have worked had the chemistry between the leads been better)
Letter Grade: B- and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated I Care a Lot (2020) in Movies
Feb 27, 2021
Rosamund Pike - what Gone Girl did next (1 more)
Supporting cast: Peter Dinklage, Eiza Gonzáles and Dianne Wiest
An inky black comedy thriller
Maria Grayson (Rosamund Pike) and her colleague-cum-lover Fran (Eiza González) are running an extensive con. Through the manipulation of the Boston legal and medical systems, Maria arranges to be appointed the legal guardian for numerous older people. Packing them away to a drugged up life in a care home, the pair then plunder the estates of their wards, turning a tidy profit. The weatlhy and unattached Jennifer Peterson (Dianne Wiest) appears to be a "cherry" that can take their fortunes to a completely different level. But all is not as it seems, and Maria and Fran's evil but comfortable lives are about to be turned on their heads.
Positives:
- When I say the comedy is inky black, I mean it. It's unusual to find a movie without a single character that you can relate to or even remotely like. For some reason, it reminded me of the Michael Douglas / Kathleen Turner vehicle "The War of the Roses" in that regard. And yet, once you let the evilness of it sink in, it becomes a rip-roaring story that delights to the very end.
- Rosamund Pike delivers yet again another superb performance, making Maria an icy cold villain. The role could be summed up as "What Gone Girl did next".
- Peter Dinklage delights in portraying an evil character which, for reasons of spoiler avoidance, I shall say nothing further about. But it's a cracking performance and brilliant to see a script that steadfastly ignores his physical characteristics.
- Dianne Wiest ("The Mule") and Eiza González ("the sexy one" from "Baby Driver") also deliver strong supporting roles.
-J Blakeson - who did "The Disappearance of Alice Creed" - directs with style, and hopefully his truly novel screenplay will be suitably recognised through awards. There are some clever twists: one near the end which (Smug McSmuggerson from the University of Smugchester) I saw coming, and another one soon after that I didn't!
- Mark Canham - not a composer I know - delivers a really engaging and bouncy score that's top notch. Loved it.
Negatives:
- The plot is just SO inky black at the beginning, that some may get through the first 15 minutes and think "Nope, not for me". You should stick with it: after Peter Dinklage appears, the movie shifts up a gear and changes in tone.
- The plot occasionally stretches credibility beyond breaking point. In particular, all the characters seem to be wholly incompetent at 'dispatching people' when they have the opportunity to do so. The repetition of these failures I found to be a bit tiresome.
Summary: Finding a movie with a novel storyline is an unusual thing these days, and one that combines that with a taut and engrossing screenplay is a gem indeed. It's probably not one recommended for very elderly people to watch.... then again, perhaps with so many evil scammers around in real life, it might be considered required viewing! But, if you have one, you'll probably want to have a chat with your granny after watching this.
(For the full graphical review, check out the full review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/02/27/i-care-a-lot-an-inky-black-comedy-thriller/. Thanks).
Positives:
- When I say the comedy is inky black, I mean it. It's unusual to find a movie without a single character that you can relate to or even remotely like. For some reason, it reminded me of the Michael Douglas / Kathleen Turner vehicle "The War of the Roses" in that regard. And yet, once you let the evilness of it sink in, it becomes a rip-roaring story that delights to the very end.
- Rosamund Pike delivers yet again another superb performance, making Maria an icy cold villain. The role could be summed up as "What Gone Girl did next".
- Peter Dinklage delights in portraying an evil character which, for reasons of spoiler avoidance, I shall say nothing further about. But it's a cracking performance and brilliant to see a script that steadfastly ignores his physical characteristics.
- Dianne Wiest ("The Mule") and Eiza González ("the sexy one" from "Baby Driver") also deliver strong supporting roles.
-J Blakeson - who did "The Disappearance of Alice Creed" - directs with style, and hopefully his truly novel screenplay will be suitably recognised through awards. There are some clever twists: one near the end which (Smug McSmuggerson from the University of Smugchester) I saw coming, and another one soon after that I didn't!
- Mark Canham - not a composer I know - delivers a really engaging and bouncy score that's top notch. Loved it.
Negatives:
- The plot is just SO inky black at the beginning, that some may get through the first 15 minutes and think "Nope, not for me". You should stick with it: after Peter Dinklage appears, the movie shifts up a gear and changes in tone.
- The plot occasionally stretches credibility beyond breaking point. In particular, all the characters seem to be wholly incompetent at 'dispatching people' when they have the opportunity to do so. The repetition of these failures I found to be a bit tiresome.
Summary: Finding a movie with a novel storyline is an unusual thing these days, and one that combines that with a taut and engrossing screenplay is a gem indeed. It's probably not one recommended for very elderly people to watch.... then again, perhaps with so many evil scammers around in real life, it might be considered required viewing! But, if you have one, you'll probably want to have a chat with your granny after watching this.
(For the full graphical review, check out the full review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/02/27/i-care-a-lot-an-inky-black-comedy-thriller/. Thanks).
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019
There's a lot of good, fun, over-the-top, explosive action! (2 more)
Age of Extinction features an incredible showcase of special effects.
Great acting from Tucci and Grammar, and a solid new star for the franchise with Mark Wahlberg.
With a 2 hour and 45 minute run-time, the movie goes on far too long and loses steam before the finale. (1 more)
The plot is completely overloaded with enough content to easily cover two films.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie that sticks to Michael Bay's usual mode of operation, but it's jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should.
After the events of Transformers: Dark of the Moon, referred to in the film as The Battle of Chicago, the surviving Autobots are being hunted to extinction. The United States government is bent on exterminating all Transformers, good and bad, believing them to be an unwelcome global threat. All the while, the hypocritical government has simultaneously partnered with a wealthy inventor who is trying to create his own superior, man-made variations of Transformers. Furthermore, they’re working with the help of the Transformer bounty hunter Lockdown to search out and annihilate Optimus Prime, the famed leader of the Autobots. Prime has been forced into hiding and has sent out a distress call encouraging his comrades to follow suit. When amateur inventor Cade Yeager inadvertently stumbles upon a disguised Optimus Prime, he helps to repair the damaged Transformer who must reunite with his remaining allies to fight for their right to live.
Before I dive into this review, I think I should inform you that I have not seen any of the previous Transformers movies. I should also note that I’m something of a Transformers hater. Despite pressure from family and friends who have praised the movie series, I have deliberately avoided every single one of the films. I never liked the cartoon as a kid, and while Transformers’ amalgamation of cars and robots may be a dream combination for most guys, I have very little interest in either. However, as a critic, I cannot let my own biases get in the way of giving fair judgment. After having watched Transformers: Age of Extinction, I can thankfully report that the film actually wasn’t half bad. While it’s not going to make a Transformers fan out of me, it was an entertaining, albeit overly-long, movie-going experience.
Age of Extinction is an action-packed ride, filled with the kind of over-the-top entertainment you would expect from a Michael Bay film. While Bay has developed something of a bad rap, there’s no denying his knack for fun and ridiculous action sequences. He’s a man who spares no expense when it comes to explosions and special effects, and this is where Bay is at his best. Love him or hate him, it’s hard to argue with his results as he’s surely one of the most successful directors of all time. However, clocking in at two hours and forty-five minutes, the high-speed action of Age of Extinction is exhausting and becomes tiresome long before the finale. Even when Bay slows things down, he keeps the camera overly busy with particle effects and constant movement. While all of that looks great in IMAX 3D, it feels like an endless visual barrage that is frankly a lot to take in. How many lens flares must a man endure in one movie? I understand the desire to make every shot exciting and visually striking, but I think Bay is trying to tackle too much on camera.
Similarly, Age of Extinction is trying to squeeze too much into its plot, which could almost be broken up into two entirely separate movies. We have the hunt for Optimus Prime and the Transformers by Lockdown and the CIA; Cade Yeager’s discovery of Prime and their ensuing alliance; the love story between Cade’s daughter and her boyfriend; the emergence of the Dinobots; as well as the man-made construction of new Transformers. The result is a fast-paced action movie that is convoluted and far too long. That’s not to say that what is there is bad, though. Awful love story aside, all of the other components of the story are solid and even pretty interesting. Kelsey Grammer puts in a good performance as the head of the CIA who is responsible for the extermination of the Transformers. Similarly, Stanley Tucci is great as Joshua Joyce, the brilliant inventor who is recreating human-controlled Transformers for military use. Yet I can’t help but think that Joyce’s plot would have been perhaps been better to save for a sequel. Sure, it offers a nice parallel between the two inventors and it also creates an opportunity for them to introduce some all-new Transformers, but aren’t the Dinobots enough? There’s so much going on in the film that the eagerly-anticipated Dinobots aren’t given much screen time at all. There is just an unreasonable amount of narratives going on in this movie, to the point where it’s hard to follow, and even harder to stay interested in. Instead of sitting on the edge of your seat during the climactic showdown, you’re probably going to be looking at your watch and wondering how much longer this movie can possibly go on.
While I’m no expert on Transformers, I think the film does an admirable job in bringing the robotic characters to life. Their appearance and animation are both impressive, and they’re typically a pretty fun bunch. I have to admit, though, that I was a bit jarred by the angry and violent demeanor of Optimus Prime. I thought he was supposed to be the good guy everyone looked up to? In Age of Extinction, he clearly has some anger management issues. While he might be the most skilled warrior out there, he sure doesn’t seem like much of a role model. Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, has one again returned to voice the character. John Goodman gives a stand-out voice performance as Hound, in a role he seemed to have a lot of fun with, and Ken Watanabe voices the Samurai-like Transformer known as Drift. All in all, there are a lot of Transformers in the movie, but there is hardly ample time to get to know most of them. I imagine many of them have been introduced in previous films, but for a newcomer like myself, I had a hard time distinguishing between quite a few of them. Then there are the Dinobots, which look awesome, but we’re not given a chance to know much of anything about them. It’s a shame that they’re reduced to feeling like unnecessary bookends to an already overly-crammed movie.
On the human side of things, Mark Wahlberg is enjoyable as the struggling inventor who scavengers through whatever he can to try to create a breakthrough invention. He brings a charming and heroic presence to his role, making him a character we can identify with and root for as he tries to assist the highly-targeted Transformers. T.J. Miller’s Lucas makes for a mildly humorous companion to Cade, although much of the film’s attempts at comedy feel forced and aren’t very funny. Then there’s Nicola Peltz as the skimpily-dressed, rebellious but brainy and innocent, party girl daughter Tessa. She fits right into Bay’s stereotypical sexist female lead who serves as little more than a damsel in distress and eye candy. Still, I don’t know who is worse; Tessa, or her rally car racing boyfriend Shane, played by Jack Reynor. I felt just as frustrated by them as Wahlberg does playing Tessa’s disgruntled and disapproving father. These two lovebirds are an annoying and unwanted addition that only further drag out the plot. While it was at first vaguely amusing to watch Cade freak out as the over-protective father, that shtick ended up getting old real quick. While Wahlberg makes a good new face for the franchise, I hope to God that he comes alone for the next one.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie. Director Michael Bay sticks to his usual mode of operation with ridiculous action sequences, top of the line special effects, and a whole lot of explosions. If you’re looking for a movie with more flash than substance, Age of Extinction should be right up your alley. It’s jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should, but if offers plenty of dumb, fun entertainment. Transformers fans should be pleased, although the series still has yet to make a fan out of me.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.22.14.)
Before I dive into this review, I think I should inform you that I have not seen any of the previous Transformers movies. I should also note that I’m something of a Transformers hater. Despite pressure from family and friends who have praised the movie series, I have deliberately avoided every single one of the films. I never liked the cartoon as a kid, and while Transformers’ amalgamation of cars and robots may be a dream combination for most guys, I have very little interest in either. However, as a critic, I cannot let my own biases get in the way of giving fair judgment. After having watched Transformers: Age of Extinction, I can thankfully report that the film actually wasn’t half bad. While it’s not going to make a Transformers fan out of me, it was an entertaining, albeit overly-long, movie-going experience.
Age of Extinction is an action-packed ride, filled with the kind of over-the-top entertainment you would expect from a Michael Bay film. While Bay has developed something of a bad rap, there’s no denying his knack for fun and ridiculous action sequences. He’s a man who spares no expense when it comes to explosions and special effects, and this is where Bay is at his best. Love him or hate him, it’s hard to argue with his results as he’s surely one of the most successful directors of all time. However, clocking in at two hours and forty-five minutes, the high-speed action of Age of Extinction is exhausting and becomes tiresome long before the finale. Even when Bay slows things down, he keeps the camera overly busy with particle effects and constant movement. While all of that looks great in IMAX 3D, it feels like an endless visual barrage that is frankly a lot to take in. How many lens flares must a man endure in one movie? I understand the desire to make every shot exciting and visually striking, but I think Bay is trying to tackle too much on camera.
Similarly, Age of Extinction is trying to squeeze too much into its plot, which could almost be broken up into two entirely separate movies. We have the hunt for Optimus Prime and the Transformers by Lockdown and the CIA; Cade Yeager’s discovery of Prime and their ensuing alliance; the love story between Cade’s daughter and her boyfriend; the emergence of the Dinobots; as well as the man-made construction of new Transformers. The result is a fast-paced action movie that is convoluted and far too long. That’s not to say that what is there is bad, though. Awful love story aside, all of the other components of the story are solid and even pretty interesting. Kelsey Grammer puts in a good performance as the head of the CIA who is responsible for the extermination of the Transformers. Similarly, Stanley Tucci is great as Joshua Joyce, the brilliant inventor who is recreating human-controlled Transformers for military use. Yet I can’t help but think that Joyce’s plot would have been perhaps been better to save for a sequel. Sure, it offers a nice parallel between the two inventors and it also creates an opportunity for them to introduce some all-new Transformers, but aren’t the Dinobots enough? There’s so much going on in the film that the eagerly-anticipated Dinobots aren’t given much screen time at all. There is just an unreasonable amount of narratives going on in this movie, to the point where it’s hard to follow, and even harder to stay interested in. Instead of sitting on the edge of your seat during the climactic showdown, you’re probably going to be looking at your watch and wondering how much longer this movie can possibly go on.
While I’m no expert on Transformers, I think the film does an admirable job in bringing the robotic characters to life. Their appearance and animation are both impressive, and they’re typically a pretty fun bunch. I have to admit, though, that I was a bit jarred by the angry and violent demeanor of Optimus Prime. I thought he was supposed to be the good guy everyone looked up to? In Age of Extinction, he clearly has some anger management issues. While he might be the most skilled warrior out there, he sure doesn’t seem like much of a role model. Peter Cullen, the original voice of Optimus Prime, has one again returned to voice the character. John Goodman gives a stand-out voice performance as Hound, in a role he seemed to have a lot of fun with, and Ken Watanabe voices the Samurai-like Transformer known as Drift. All in all, there are a lot of Transformers in the movie, but there is hardly ample time to get to know most of them. I imagine many of them have been introduced in previous films, but for a newcomer like myself, I had a hard time distinguishing between quite a few of them. Then there are the Dinobots, which look awesome, but we’re not given a chance to know much of anything about them. It’s a shame that they’re reduced to feeling like unnecessary bookends to an already overly-crammed movie.
On the human side of things, Mark Wahlberg is enjoyable as the struggling inventor who scavengers through whatever he can to try to create a breakthrough invention. He brings a charming and heroic presence to his role, making him a character we can identify with and root for as he tries to assist the highly-targeted Transformers. T.J. Miller’s Lucas makes for a mildly humorous companion to Cade, although much of the film’s attempts at comedy feel forced and aren’t very funny. Then there’s Nicola Peltz as the skimpily-dressed, rebellious but brainy and innocent, party girl daughter Tessa. She fits right into Bay’s stereotypical sexist female lead who serves as little more than a damsel in distress and eye candy. Still, I don’t know who is worse; Tessa, or her rally car racing boyfriend Shane, played by Jack Reynor. I felt just as frustrated by them as Wahlberg does playing Tessa’s disgruntled and disapproving father. These two lovebirds are an annoying and unwanted addition that only further drag out the plot. While it was at first vaguely amusing to watch Cade freak out as the over-protective father, that shtick ended up getting old real quick. While Wahlberg makes a good new face for the franchise, I hope to God that he comes alone for the next one.
Transformers: Age of Extinction is a fun summer movie. Director Michael Bay sticks to his usual mode of operation with ridiculous action sequences, top of the line special effects, and a whole lot of explosions. If you’re looking for a movie with more flash than substance, Age of Extinction should be right up your alley. It’s jam-packed and overly ambitious, stretching the run time far longer than it ever should, but if offers plenty of dumb, fun entertainment. Transformers fans should be pleased, although the series still has yet to make a fan out of me.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.22.14.)
Justin Patchett (42 KP) rated Inception (2010) in Movies
Mar 13, 2019
Masterful visuals, including many practical effects wonders (1 more)
Extraordinary score by Hans Zimmer
Relationships bud in the film, but feel forced (1 more)
A few plot-holes, albeit none thoroughly distracting
Contains spoilers, click to show
With two of the most scathing reviews I’ve written under my belt, I figured it was time to write about my favorite movie of all time, Christopher Nolan’s “Inception.”
“Inception” revolves around Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a spy who uses military-grade technology and shared dreams to extract information from his marks. He and his team are unwittingly tested by their latest target, Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe) for recruitment into a different kind of job: Inception, a type of job using the same skills and technology to implant an idea. In particular, Saito calls on Cobb to plant an idea on his business competitor, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). In spite of his reluctancy about this type of job, Saito’s offer to clear Cobb of a murder charge sways Cobb in favor of taking the job.
Cobb gathers new help, including Ariadne (Ellen Page), an architect he finds capable of creating complex labyrinths. With the help of a deep sedative, the team is able to make Fischer have dreams within dreams within dreams, a method that makes the mark more receptive to the implanted idea. It comes with a cost, though: The dreams become more unstable as they continue going deeper into the dream world, and the sedative itself creates the risk of actual death within the dream.
First of all, let’s talk cast. Already, we’ve got four top-grade talents named, but we also have Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur, Cobb’s point man, Tom Hardy as Eames, a forger, and additional roles filled by Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine. Nolan did not lack for talent in this one, and by gosh it shows.
Visually, “Inception” excels most with making the impossible as real as cinema can make it. Throughout the film, characters are able to manipulate the rules of the dream world, making for moments where fruit explodes, cities bend, and stairwells become endless. Beyond portraying the impossible, though, the film has to show the real world, too. In those scenes, an aesthetic that can’t exactly be placed takes over. The technology has a slightly retro-futuristic feel to it, while the fashion and settings rely on classic tastes. Even Hans Zimmer’s score, which samples from the work of vocalist Edith Piaf, contributes to the chronological ambiguity of the movie. By not being able to place the film’s setting in any particular year or even decade, it seems prepackaged to become a classic film.
Speaking of Zimmer, he’s is at his best with this score. The complexity of the film reflects in a layered score, and listening to it on its own is its own sort of treat. It’s one of those symphonic recordings that the listener will pick out something they never noticed before every time.
But even above the stellar cast and visuals that have inspired reality-bending sequences in films since, this film’s biggest success is its use of approachable themes and concepts to tell a story within a story. Nearly a decade after its initial release, fans have widely circulated the idea that “Inception” is a film about storytelling. Concepts as basic as nesting stories within stories play out many ways across the plot. It also plays with common experiences in dreams, turning experiences like the feeling of falling into tools for Cobb’s team to exploit. Essentially, if you can dream, you already have a primer in this film’s core principles.
It’s not without flaws, as no film is. Certain moments fail to hold up upon closer inspection. For instance, the relationship between Ariadne and Arthur comes across forced. Those moments aside, from its foreshadowing opening to its meaningfully open-ended ending, “Inception” is an absolute marvel.
“Inception” revolves around Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a spy who uses military-grade technology and shared dreams to extract information from his marks. He and his team are unwittingly tested by their latest target, Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe) for recruitment into a different kind of job: Inception, a type of job using the same skills and technology to implant an idea. In particular, Saito calls on Cobb to plant an idea on his business competitor, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy). In spite of his reluctancy about this type of job, Saito’s offer to clear Cobb of a murder charge sways Cobb in favor of taking the job.
Cobb gathers new help, including Ariadne (Ellen Page), an architect he finds capable of creating complex labyrinths. With the help of a deep sedative, the team is able to make Fischer have dreams within dreams within dreams, a method that makes the mark more receptive to the implanted idea. It comes with a cost, though: The dreams become more unstable as they continue going deeper into the dream world, and the sedative itself creates the risk of actual death within the dream.
First of all, let’s talk cast. Already, we’ve got four top-grade talents named, but we also have Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur, Cobb’s point man, Tom Hardy as Eames, a forger, and additional roles filled by Marion Cotillard and Michael Caine. Nolan did not lack for talent in this one, and by gosh it shows.
Visually, “Inception” excels most with making the impossible as real as cinema can make it. Throughout the film, characters are able to manipulate the rules of the dream world, making for moments where fruit explodes, cities bend, and stairwells become endless. Beyond portraying the impossible, though, the film has to show the real world, too. In those scenes, an aesthetic that can’t exactly be placed takes over. The technology has a slightly retro-futuristic feel to it, while the fashion and settings rely on classic tastes. Even Hans Zimmer’s score, which samples from the work of vocalist Edith Piaf, contributes to the chronological ambiguity of the movie. By not being able to place the film’s setting in any particular year or even decade, it seems prepackaged to become a classic film.
Speaking of Zimmer, he’s is at his best with this score. The complexity of the film reflects in a layered score, and listening to it on its own is its own sort of treat. It’s one of those symphonic recordings that the listener will pick out something they never noticed before every time.
But even above the stellar cast and visuals that have inspired reality-bending sequences in films since, this film’s biggest success is its use of approachable themes and concepts to tell a story within a story. Nearly a decade after its initial release, fans have widely circulated the idea that “Inception” is a film about storytelling. Concepts as basic as nesting stories within stories play out many ways across the plot. It also plays with common experiences in dreams, turning experiences like the feeling of falling into tools for Cobb’s team to exploit. Essentially, if you can dream, you already have a primer in this film’s core principles.
It’s not without flaws, as no film is. Certain moments fail to hold up upon closer inspection. For instance, the relationship between Ariadne and Arthur comes across forced. Those moments aside, from its foreshadowing opening to its meaningfully open-ended ending, “Inception” is an absolute marvel.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Zodiac in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Also find my review here: http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/june-29th-2016
Firstly I'd like to thank Netgalley and Penguin UK - Michael Joseph for giving me the opportunity to read this book in an exchange for a review.
<b><i>"How much worse would the world be if everyone was colour-coded? If people thought they could tell someone's essence at a glance, and discrimination became purely thoughtless? … Maybe people wouldn't spend so much time making sure they acted, sounded and thought the same as their neighbours, if they weren't terrified of being mistaken for the wrong sign. Maybe they'd realise how arbitrary it truly was."</b></i>
This was such a tricky debut novel. The premise was incredibly unique and intriguing that it almost became difficult for the author to live up to the expectations of the plot. Not to say that all debut crime novels are crap but this was such a complex story that I think only really experienced writers like Stephen King or even Gillian Flynn could have shaped it into what it was supposed to be.
I was initially attracted to this book because of the front cover and because the idea of a society where you are segregated by your star sign is a really interesting and unique twist on a look at modern society. Plus I love a crime thriller and had read some good things about this already.
To my disappointment, I felt this started off really slow. I almost couldn’t get into it, but I decided to push myself to continue reading. Only at around 30 - 40% did I finally start to enjoy this. I think a big problem for me was the writing. I often found it a bit clunky and overly descriptive, plus a few spelling and grammar mistakes threw me off. <b>(I hope there's a lot of proofreading before this gets published!)</b>
Though the plot got better, more fast paced and more exciting I still found it difficult to like any of the characters. Burton was a little pretentious and overly insecure. Lindi was as useful as a medium. Mendez was a little bitch. Daniel was mopey and selfish. Cray was your typical dislikable teen gangster. Bram was needy and childish. Maria was supposed to be a kind character but all she did was resent her job and her life. Maybe I’m being a little harsh but I found it difficult to like or relate to any of them.
I felt there was a lot left unsaid when it came to the characters too. Like what happened between Burton and his wife? They were completely fine and loved up one minute and then the next he was saying <i>“he knew she was separating from his life”</i>, but why? Also after the whole Bram <i>thing</i>, he said <i>”Justice was coming for them all”</i> but again, when did that happen in the novel?
Unfortunately I predicted the twist before the 50% mark, I don’t think it was that hard to guess, so that took away some of the excitement of finding out what was going on and getting our killers motive. By the time we find out who our killer is and the Aries people are rising up it all got too confusing for me. There was too much going on in each scene that my mind couldn't focus on any of it!
I’ve given this 3 stars because there was a good story line there and at times some quite nice writing but it was a mediocre book in my mind, not particularly memorable.
On another note, the Ram Squad reminded me of the all the different gangs in Saints Row and the entire Ariesville had a very Gotham vibe to it.
Firstly I'd like to thank Netgalley and Penguin UK - Michael Joseph for giving me the opportunity to read this book in an exchange for a review.
<b><i>"How much worse would the world be if everyone was colour-coded? If people thought they could tell someone's essence at a glance, and discrimination became purely thoughtless? … Maybe people wouldn't spend so much time making sure they acted, sounded and thought the same as their neighbours, if they weren't terrified of being mistaken for the wrong sign. Maybe they'd realise how arbitrary it truly was."</b></i>
This was such a tricky debut novel. The premise was incredibly unique and intriguing that it almost became difficult for the author to live up to the expectations of the plot. Not to say that all debut crime novels are crap but this was such a complex story that I think only really experienced writers like Stephen King or even Gillian Flynn could have shaped it into what it was supposed to be.
I was initially attracted to this book because of the front cover and because the idea of a society where you are segregated by your star sign is a really interesting and unique twist on a look at modern society. Plus I love a crime thriller and had read some good things about this already.
To my disappointment, I felt this started off really slow. I almost couldn’t get into it, but I decided to push myself to continue reading. Only at around 30 - 40% did I finally start to enjoy this. I think a big problem for me was the writing. I often found it a bit clunky and overly descriptive, plus a few spelling and grammar mistakes threw me off. <b>(I hope there's a lot of proofreading before this gets published!)</b>
Though the plot got better, more fast paced and more exciting I still found it difficult to like any of the characters. Burton was a little pretentious and overly insecure. Lindi was as useful as a medium. Mendez was a little bitch. Daniel was mopey and selfish. Cray was your typical dislikable teen gangster. Bram was needy and childish. Maria was supposed to be a kind character but all she did was resent her job and her life. Maybe I’m being a little harsh but I found it difficult to like or relate to any of them.
I felt there was a lot left unsaid when it came to the characters too. Like what happened between Burton and his wife? They were completely fine and loved up one minute and then the next he was saying <i>“he knew she was separating from his life”</i>, but why? Also after the whole Bram <i>thing</i>, he said <i>”Justice was coming for them all”</i> but again, when did that happen in the novel?
Unfortunately I predicted the twist before the 50% mark, I don’t think it was that hard to guess, so that took away some of the excitement of finding out what was going on and getting our killers motive. By the time we find out who our killer is and the Aries people are rising up it all got too confusing for me. There was too much going on in each scene that my mind couldn't focus on any of it!
I’ve given this 3 stars because there was a good story line there and at times some quite nice writing but it was a mediocre book in my mind, not particularly memorable.
On another note, the Ram Squad reminded me of the all the different gangs in Saints Row and the entire Ariesville had a very Gotham vibe to it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
If you hold the film rights to an iconic and beloved comic book series, one would think you would do everything possible to see that it flourishes under you watch. For 29th Century Fox, The Fantastic Four is an asset that should be a gem of their studio as the long-running Marvel comic series has had legions of fans for generations.
The previous two films did well enough but still had their detractors amongst the fans. So, Fox opted for a hiatus and then a radical reboot of the series complete with casting choices that were considered very questionable.
The new version features Miles Teller as Reed Richards, a young man obsessed with teleportation to the point that his teachers and other students laugh at him for his odd and obsessive ways.
His only friend is Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell), who despite a lack of scientific knowledge supports Reed in his efforts which eventually allow him to be recruited by Dr. Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey), who discloses that he is working on a large scale teleportation device and seeing how Reed pulled it off with a device he made in his garage, is eager to see what he can do at a fully-funded facility.
Reed meets Franklins adopted daughter Sue (Kate Mara), as well as his son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), while they work with the mercurial Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell), to complete the device.
When the team finds success, they are horrified to learn that the government plans to take over control of the project so Ben, Victor, Johnny, and Reed opt to use it themselves to visit the other dimension in order to leave their mark in history.
Things at first go well but when a mysterious force envelops them, odd things start to happen when they return home. Reed is capable of stretching himself, Johnny is a living fire, Ben is covered in rocks, and Sue is phasing in and out.
Flashing forward the group is under the watch of the government and Reed has fled not wanting to be a part of whatever is going on. Ben is used for special operations and blames Reed for abandoning them as Sue and Johnny are prepped for the field.
Now one would think a setup like this has some potential at the very least for some action and great FX. Sadly the film lurches ahead fairly light on action. The threat to the film appears, and within 10 minutes has moved to a fairly underwhelming final conflict that is so obviously done in front of a Green Screen that it loses much of the intended impact.
The best I can say for the film is that it is a forgettable and flawed film that tries to launch a new franchise in a new way. But the casting choices in the film are so wrong, that it undermines it at every step. Setting aside the debate over an African American Johnny Storm, Miles Teller is so bland; he just does not scream leading man or driving force behind the team.
The same can be said for pretty much the entire cast. The backstories hint at various things but their actions conflict several aspects of the film which to be honest are fairly forgettable.
The entire movie is like watching a Jr. College Fan Film where the cast has a Green Screen and studio funding, but not a clue on how to carry out a story, modern action sequences of character development.
Fox needs to take a serious page from Sony and work with Marvel if they are going to continue this franchise, or return the rights to Marvel so fans can finally get a film that does justice to the source material.
I am glad that Director Josh Trank is no longer associated with the pending Star Wars film as this movie is a train wreck that spits all over the history and legacy of the source material.
http://sknr.net/2015/08/07/the-fantastic-four/
The previous two films did well enough but still had their detractors amongst the fans. So, Fox opted for a hiatus and then a radical reboot of the series complete with casting choices that were considered very questionable.
The new version features Miles Teller as Reed Richards, a young man obsessed with teleportation to the point that his teachers and other students laugh at him for his odd and obsessive ways.
His only friend is Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell), who despite a lack of scientific knowledge supports Reed in his efforts which eventually allow him to be recruited by Dr. Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey), who discloses that he is working on a large scale teleportation device and seeing how Reed pulled it off with a device he made in his garage, is eager to see what he can do at a fully-funded facility.
Reed meets Franklins adopted daughter Sue (Kate Mara), as well as his son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), while they work with the mercurial Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell), to complete the device.
When the team finds success, they are horrified to learn that the government plans to take over control of the project so Ben, Victor, Johnny, and Reed opt to use it themselves to visit the other dimension in order to leave their mark in history.
Things at first go well but when a mysterious force envelops them, odd things start to happen when they return home. Reed is capable of stretching himself, Johnny is a living fire, Ben is covered in rocks, and Sue is phasing in and out.
Flashing forward the group is under the watch of the government and Reed has fled not wanting to be a part of whatever is going on. Ben is used for special operations and blames Reed for abandoning them as Sue and Johnny are prepped for the field.
Now one would think a setup like this has some potential at the very least for some action and great FX. Sadly the film lurches ahead fairly light on action. The threat to the film appears, and within 10 minutes has moved to a fairly underwhelming final conflict that is so obviously done in front of a Green Screen that it loses much of the intended impact.
The best I can say for the film is that it is a forgettable and flawed film that tries to launch a new franchise in a new way. But the casting choices in the film are so wrong, that it undermines it at every step. Setting aside the debate over an African American Johnny Storm, Miles Teller is so bland; he just does not scream leading man or driving force behind the team.
The same can be said for pretty much the entire cast. The backstories hint at various things but their actions conflict several aspects of the film which to be honest are fairly forgettable.
The entire movie is like watching a Jr. College Fan Film where the cast has a Green Screen and studio funding, but not a clue on how to carry out a story, modern action sequences of character development.
Fox needs to take a serious page from Sony and work with Marvel if they are going to continue this franchise, or return the rights to Marvel so fans can finally get a film that does justice to the source material.
I am glad that Director Josh Trank is no longer associated with the pending Star Wars film as this movie is a train wreck that spits all over the history and legacy of the source material.
http://sknr.net/2015/08/07/the-fantastic-four/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.