Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Christmas (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
Alas, Christmas
Oh Dear! Now I wouldn't go as far as saying I had "high hopes" for this film, but as a real fan of the goo-fest that is "Love Actually" I at least thought this might fill some seasonal void in the run up to the festive season. "Best Christmas film of the decade!!" screams the marketing. Er... no.
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Annihilation (2018) in Movies
Feb 24, 2018
Just didn't work for me
I like "Intelligent Science Fiction". You know, like Alex Garland's other Directorial effort 2014's EX MACHINA or Jeff Nichols’ involving 2016 film MIDNIGHT SPECIAL. These are the types of films that uses the backdrop of Science Fiction to delve deeper into character, concepts or ideas, leaving time for the audience to take it all in and to really think about what is being shown on the screen and to wrestle with the concepts brought forth. So, I was really excited when I found out the Garland would be helming a film of the first book in Jeff VanderMeer's SOUTHERN REACH trilogy, ANNIHILATION - a trippy sci-fi book series about an alien presence that starts tearing away at the very fabric of human existence. I was convinced that this marriage of source material and filmmaker would create another cinematic gem.
Boy, was I wrong.
ANNIHILATION fails in all the ways that these types of films could fail. It is self-indulgent, favors style over substance, mood over momentum and has long, long, loooong scenes of dialogue (or non-dialogue) that is supposed to convey a sense of dread and, for me, just made me want to yell at the screen "get on with it!"
ANNIHILATION tells the story of a group of women who comprise the 12th group of explorers entering "the shimmer" - an unknown phenomenon in a remote part of the US that is growing and will soon start engulfing populated areas. None of the other groups have returned (save for 1 soldier). This 12th group, led by the mysterious Dr. Ventres, tries to get at the heart of what the shimmer is and succeed where others failed. Once inside "the shimmer" the group must fight with their own nightmares and what makes them human.
Sounds like a really good premise for an intelligent Sci-Fi film doesn't it? Unfortunately, Director and Writer Garland is more interested in the sights, sounds and moods of "the shimmer" and fails to create any interesting characters - or circumstances - for the audience to follow.
Natalie Portman stars as Lena - a biologist (and former military) who's husband (the great Oscar Isaac) is the lone returning solider (though not all of him, mentally, has returned). The pairing of these two strong, interesting actors should have been enough to propel this film forward, but all they do is stare at each other and "not say" anything. They look at each other like something is wrong, but the never say or do anything. Compounding things is the weird portrayal of the weird Dr. Ventres by Jennifer Jason Leigh - an actress not known from shying away from weird. Her portrayal would have worked, I think, if she had some "normal" folks to play against - or if her character had some sort of climax, but she doesn't, she just sort of peters out. Joining these two are Tessa Thompson (losing the goodwill she earned in THOR:RAGNAROK) as a physicist that "has secrets" and Gina Rodriguez (channelling her inner Michelle Rodriguez) as a gung-ho "kick-ass" paramedic (you can guess how that is going to turn out). Only Tuva Novotny as scientist Cass Sheppard has anything approaching an interesting character, but she is on all too briefly.
Also wasted in this film is Benedict Wong (DOCTOR STRANGE) as the "Basil Exposition" of this film (explaining things to the audience) and David Gyasi (INTERSTELLAR) as a pseudo-love interest for Lena.
Maybe I'm just not "artsy" enough to enjoy this. If you are and you enjoy this, let me know what I missed. As it is, I have an early, leading contender for "Worst Film of 2018".
In the meantime, I'm going to rewatch EX MACHINA or MIDNIGHT SPECIAL, two intelligent Science Fiction films that work.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Boy, was I wrong.
ANNIHILATION fails in all the ways that these types of films could fail. It is self-indulgent, favors style over substance, mood over momentum and has long, long, loooong scenes of dialogue (or non-dialogue) that is supposed to convey a sense of dread and, for me, just made me want to yell at the screen "get on with it!"
ANNIHILATION tells the story of a group of women who comprise the 12th group of explorers entering "the shimmer" - an unknown phenomenon in a remote part of the US that is growing and will soon start engulfing populated areas. None of the other groups have returned (save for 1 soldier). This 12th group, led by the mysterious Dr. Ventres, tries to get at the heart of what the shimmer is and succeed where others failed. Once inside "the shimmer" the group must fight with their own nightmares and what makes them human.
Sounds like a really good premise for an intelligent Sci-Fi film doesn't it? Unfortunately, Director and Writer Garland is more interested in the sights, sounds and moods of "the shimmer" and fails to create any interesting characters - or circumstances - for the audience to follow.
Natalie Portman stars as Lena - a biologist (and former military) who's husband (the great Oscar Isaac) is the lone returning solider (though not all of him, mentally, has returned). The pairing of these two strong, interesting actors should have been enough to propel this film forward, but all they do is stare at each other and "not say" anything. They look at each other like something is wrong, but the never say or do anything. Compounding things is the weird portrayal of the weird Dr. Ventres by Jennifer Jason Leigh - an actress not known from shying away from weird. Her portrayal would have worked, I think, if she had some "normal" folks to play against - or if her character had some sort of climax, but she doesn't, she just sort of peters out. Joining these two are Tessa Thompson (losing the goodwill she earned in THOR:RAGNAROK) as a physicist that "has secrets" and Gina Rodriguez (channelling her inner Michelle Rodriguez) as a gung-ho "kick-ass" paramedic (you can guess how that is going to turn out). Only Tuva Novotny as scientist Cass Sheppard has anything approaching an interesting character, but she is on all too briefly.
Also wasted in this film is Benedict Wong (DOCTOR STRANGE) as the "Basil Exposition" of this film (explaining things to the audience) and David Gyasi (INTERSTELLAR) as a pseudo-love interest for Lena.
Maybe I'm just not "artsy" enough to enjoy this. If you are and you enjoy this, let me know what I missed. As it is, I have an early, leading contender for "Worst Film of 2018".
In the meantime, I'm going to rewatch EX MACHINA or MIDNIGHT SPECIAL, two intelligent Science Fiction films that work.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)