Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022 (Updated Feb 19, 2022)
Wasted backstories that go nowhere. (3 more)
Rehashes and recreates the original film while not offering much of its own material.
New characters fall flat.
Feels like a half-cocked attempt at a new "film. "
Tearing the Face Off of a Horror Franchise
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a direct sequel to the original 1974 film nearly 50 years later. Directed by David Blue Garcia with a screenplay by Chris Thomas Devlin and a story by Fede Alvarez (co-writer and director of the 2013 Evil Dead remake) and Rodo Sayagues (Don’t Breathe 1 & 2), Texas Chainsaw Massacre follows a group of young 20-somethings as they venture from Austin to Harlow, TX; a seven hour drive.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 23, 2020
Gal Gadot returns as Diana Prince in “Wonder Woman 1984” which has seen its release date shift a few times due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The film has started to open overseas and will arrive in the U.S. on Christmas day with a limited debut on HBO Max as well.
The story sees Diana now living in Washington D.C. in 1984. Diana is popular but has refused male companionship as she still longs for her late love Steve Trevor (Chris Pine).
Diana works in the Smithsonian Institute in antiquities and keeps her secret identity under wraps even when a daring mall heist forces her to leap into action.
A shy and passive employee named Barbara (Kirsten Wiig); who is afraid of her own shadow and largely ignored by her peers is befriended by Diana and they discover one item from the heist is inscribed with the ability to grant a wish. Unknowingly Diana wishes for Steve to return and Barbara wishes to be more like Diana which sets a chain of events into motion.
A shady business man named Maxwell Lord (Perdro Pascal) has his site on obtaining the relic as he believes having the ability to grant wishes will allow him to save his failing business and give him the power he craves.
With such a promising setup; the film ultimately does not deliver on its premise and becomes bogged down in drawn out sequences with surprisingly little action and gaps in logic that defy even standards for a comic book film.
The first 90 minutes of the film has roughly 10-15 minutes of action tops and we are instead given lengthy scenes of Steve trying to find an 80s fashion look; flying over fireworks, and Maxwell trashing from one locale to another without much needed continuity.
An action scene involving a convoy chase through the desert seems very inspired by “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and ultimately does not deliver especially with such a long gape between the action sequences.
The final act does attempt to redeem the film as seeing Barbara transform into her new persona is interesting and Wiig does a very solid job with the role. This sadly is undermined with a single line of dialogue which takes away a big part of the transformation that audiences deserved to see.
There was also a sequence where Diana races down the streets and takes to flight with her Lasso and then discovers she can fly like Superman. Not only is this not in keeping with the character; but we see this extended fast moving sequence where she is clearly heading away from D.C. at great speed only to arrive at a destination with an item which had been established to be back at her home in D.C. It is this sort of sloppiness that really detracts from the film. There is also the fact that Steve has to fly her around on a jet that even as a pilot he should not know how to fly as he has never flown a jet aircraft in his life.
When the big confrontation comes it is a letdown as it is not overly epic and the CGI really does not seem to mesh. What is an even bigger disappointment is that a certain character stands emoting for several minutes while Diana gives such a bland and extended speech that even my wife had to ask “who wrote these lines”.
The film was not a total disaster as the characters were interesting and worked well with one another making the film entertaining in parts despite being really disappointed with it.
The film strikes me as a product of the talented Patty Jenkins being able to do whatever she wanted after the success of the first film. Jenkins not only Directed but did the screenplay for it. Considering the amazing job she did writing “Monster” I had high expectations for the film but to me it seemed like it could have used a bit more attention to several aspects.
My summary would be the following… good cast, entertaining in parts, not much action over two hours, takes huge liberties with Diana and her abilities, massive gaps in logic even for a comic movie. It aims to be epic and comes up lacking. At least the mid. credit scene was worth it.
3 stars out of 5
The story sees Diana now living in Washington D.C. in 1984. Diana is popular but has refused male companionship as she still longs for her late love Steve Trevor (Chris Pine).
Diana works in the Smithsonian Institute in antiquities and keeps her secret identity under wraps even when a daring mall heist forces her to leap into action.
A shy and passive employee named Barbara (Kirsten Wiig); who is afraid of her own shadow and largely ignored by her peers is befriended by Diana and they discover one item from the heist is inscribed with the ability to grant a wish. Unknowingly Diana wishes for Steve to return and Barbara wishes to be more like Diana which sets a chain of events into motion.
A shady business man named Maxwell Lord (Perdro Pascal) has his site on obtaining the relic as he believes having the ability to grant wishes will allow him to save his failing business and give him the power he craves.
With such a promising setup; the film ultimately does not deliver on its premise and becomes bogged down in drawn out sequences with surprisingly little action and gaps in logic that defy even standards for a comic book film.
The first 90 minutes of the film has roughly 10-15 minutes of action tops and we are instead given lengthy scenes of Steve trying to find an 80s fashion look; flying over fireworks, and Maxwell trashing from one locale to another without much needed continuity.
An action scene involving a convoy chase through the desert seems very inspired by “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and ultimately does not deliver especially with such a long gape between the action sequences.
The final act does attempt to redeem the film as seeing Barbara transform into her new persona is interesting and Wiig does a very solid job with the role. This sadly is undermined with a single line of dialogue which takes away a big part of the transformation that audiences deserved to see.
There was also a sequence where Diana races down the streets and takes to flight with her Lasso and then discovers she can fly like Superman. Not only is this not in keeping with the character; but we see this extended fast moving sequence where she is clearly heading away from D.C. at great speed only to arrive at a destination with an item which had been established to be back at her home in D.C. It is this sort of sloppiness that really detracts from the film. There is also the fact that Steve has to fly her around on a jet that even as a pilot he should not know how to fly as he has never flown a jet aircraft in his life.
When the big confrontation comes it is a letdown as it is not overly epic and the CGI really does not seem to mesh. What is an even bigger disappointment is that a certain character stands emoting for several minutes while Diana gives such a bland and extended speech that even my wife had to ask “who wrote these lines”.
The film was not a total disaster as the characters were interesting and worked well with one another making the film entertaining in parts despite being really disappointed with it.
The film strikes me as a product of the talented Patty Jenkins being able to do whatever she wanted after the success of the first film. Jenkins not only Directed but did the screenplay for it. Considering the amazing job she did writing “Monster” I had high expectations for the film but to me it seemed like it could have used a bit more attention to several aspects.
My summary would be the following… good cast, entertaining in parts, not much action over two hours, takes huge liberties with Diana and her abilities, massive gaps in logic even for a comic movie. It aims to be epic and comes up lacking. At least the mid. credit scene was worth it.
3 stars out of 5
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
Underwater was in my top picks for February, it looked like a cross between Deep Rising, Alien and a selection of Doctor Who episodes... I was definitely in.
Down on a drilling station in the Mariana Trench the researchers and crew are thrown into chaos as an earthquake rips through the facility. Desperately trying to get to their escape pods the handful of remaining crew gather to assess their options. They're short on equipment and their best hope appears to be making it to another part of the complex, the only problem? It's 2 miles across the ocean floor... in the pitch black... without a craft. Oh, and unbeknownst to them, they're not alone.
The film does a great job of its opening, diagrams, reports and images of the station and their mission give us instant background which allows us to drop right into (what feels like) the middle of a scene. It reminds me of various monster movies with some of the recent Godzilla ones having similar montages, I like it because there's always something new to pick up when you watch the film again. The other thing the opening does is use sound in a very interesting way, the music builds and when we land in the station it instantly cuts and gives you a feeling of isolation. Sandwich that with the chaos of the earthquake soon after and it gives you a very odd and almost uncomfortable feeling.
While I was impressed by the opening I was also confused. There's a moment where you see a massive horror trope that doesn't actually go anywhere, it was like some strange red herring. It felt like a deliberate misdirect, but I have no idea what the purpose would have been for it.
My mixed feelings didn't end there, in the ensuing chaos we get a slow-motion shot of Stewart flying backwards in an explosion... it didn't fit with any of the style around it and was the last effect I expected to see.
Shortly after this I was dealt another blow when they access the last transmission from another part of the station. These are peak creature feature moments, cast get to gasp and scream in distress and it gives us a sneak peek of what's to come... what we got wasn't clear and wasn't intriguing. Underwater is a film filled with classic tropes of multiple genres and yet it doesn't seem to carry through with any of them.
As the cast get out into the water the film does start to pick up. Cutting from helmet cam footage to inside the suits with the characters starts to build some of that intrigue that's been missing. It gets a little more claustrophobic and finally feels like the films I'd been hoping for.
This whole section is filled with great moments because we're finally becoming aware of a presence with them. In some ways it reminds me of Blair Witch, it does well to hide from us what they're actually up against, it's just a shadow or a movement on the edge of the light. That really got me back on board.
But these feelings were fleeting. All the tension was broken again. I do wonder if someone went "the tension should come in waves... because... water". The constant up and down didn't work for me.
From this point on I didn't feel much for the film. It's clear from the building of the story how the film is going to end, and even the big reveal moments weren't exciting.
Kristen Stewart has been appearing in a lot of things recently and I've never been a big fan but I was looking forward to her in this off the back of the last couple of films I saw her in. The most I can say is it was fine, there weren't any moments I hated, there weren't any that wowed me. The same is true for most of the cast in fact. I enjoyed T.J. Miller's comedic role but the light-heartedness it brought also became a little frustrating as the scripting seemed unnecessarily crass at time.
I can't fault the effects, it felt right and the magnitude of what they created underwater, and how they filmed it felt solid. With a little less underwater and a little more creature though, I think they would have been on to something.
The rollercoaster ride this story went on left me exhausted. The momentum was repeatedly lost and the intrigue wasn't there to hook me in. I can tell you that I will watch it again though. I know, after I just moaned about it and everything! There's definitely something in this film and I'm still struggling as to the reasons why it didn't click more with me, it feels like this is one that might benefit from a second viewing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/underwater-movie-review.html
Down on a drilling station in the Mariana Trench the researchers and crew are thrown into chaos as an earthquake rips through the facility. Desperately trying to get to their escape pods the handful of remaining crew gather to assess their options. They're short on equipment and their best hope appears to be making it to another part of the complex, the only problem? It's 2 miles across the ocean floor... in the pitch black... without a craft. Oh, and unbeknownst to them, they're not alone.
The film does a great job of its opening, diagrams, reports and images of the station and their mission give us instant background which allows us to drop right into (what feels like) the middle of a scene. It reminds me of various monster movies with some of the recent Godzilla ones having similar montages, I like it because there's always something new to pick up when you watch the film again. The other thing the opening does is use sound in a very interesting way, the music builds and when we land in the station it instantly cuts and gives you a feeling of isolation. Sandwich that with the chaos of the earthquake soon after and it gives you a very odd and almost uncomfortable feeling.
While I was impressed by the opening I was also confused. There's a moment where you see a massive horror trope that doesn't actually go anywhere, it was like some strange red herring. It felt like a deliberate misdirect, but I have no idea what the purpose would have been for it.
My mixed feelings didn't end there, in the ensuing chaos we get a slow-motion shot of Stewart flying backwards in an explosion... it didn't fit with any of the style around it and was the last effect I expected to see.
Shortly after this I was dealt another blow when they access the last transmission from another part of the station. These are peak creature feature moments, cast get to gasp and scream in distress and it gives us a sneak peek of what's to come... what we got wasn't clear and wasn't intriguing. Underwater is a film filled with classic tropes of multiple genres and yet it doesn't seem to carry through with any of them.
As the cast get out into the water the film does start to pick up. Cutting from helmet cam footage to inside the suits with the characters starts to build some of that intrigue that's been missing. It gets a little more claustrophobic and finally feels like the films I'd been hoping for.
This whole section is filled with great moments because we're finally becoming aware of a presence with them. In some ways it reminds me of Blair Witch, it does well to hide from us what they're actually up against, it's just a shadow or a movement on the edge of the light. That really got me back on board.
But these feelings were fleeting. All the tension was broken again. I do wonder if someone went "the tension should come in waves... because... water". The constant up and down didn't work for me.
From this point on I didn't feel much for the film. It's clear from the building of the story how the film is going to end, and even the big reveal moments weren't exciting.
Kristen Stewart has been appearing in a lot of things recently and I've never been a big fan but I was looking forward to her in this off the back of the last couple of films I saw her in. The most I can say is it was fine, there weren't any moments I hated, there weren't any that wowed me. The same is true for most of the cast in fact. I enjoyed T.J. Miller's comedic role but the light-heartedness it brought also became a little frustrating as the scripting seemed unnecessarily crass at time.
I can't fault the effects, it felt right and the magnitude of what they created underwater, and how they filmed it felt solid. With a little less underwater and a little more creature though, I think they would have been on to something.
The rollercoaster ride this story went on left me exhausted. The momentum was repeatedly lost and the intrigue wasn't there to hook me in. I can tell you that I will watch it again though. I know, after I just moaned about it and everything! There's definitely something in this film and I'm still struggling as to the reasons why it didn't click more with me, it feels like this is one that might benefit from a second viewing.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/underwater-movie-review.html
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A bold new era
“We’re not on an island anymore” barks Chris Pratt’s Owen Grady towards the finale of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. And he’s not wrong, the fifth film in the Jurassic franchise says goodbye to Isla Nublar in rip-roaring fashion, transforming itself into a a family friendly gothic horror film in its last hour.
Ok, ok, let’s start from the beginning. The Jurassic franchise has often been criticised for relying too heavily on the same story points to make a film. 2015’s Jurassic World, whilst becoming one of the highest-grossing films of all time, was lambasted for being a modern-day reimagining of 1993’s classic, Jurassic Park. And while some of that criticism was justified, it was still pure sugary, popcorn entertainment.
Now, three years later, director J.A. Bayona (The Impossible, A Monster Calls) takes over from Colin Trevorrow to bring us a film that starts out like we expect, but ends on a note that will transform the series beyond recognition. The question is, does it actually work?
Three years after the destruction of the Jurassic World theme park, Owen Grady (Pratt) and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) return to the island of Isla Nublar to save the remaining dinosaurs from a volcano that’s about to erupt. They soon encounter terrifying new breeds of gigantic dinos while uncovering a conspiracy that threatens the entire planet and our own existence.
Fallen Kingdom begins with a pre-title card sequence situated in the lagoon of Isla Nublar that is up there with the best in the series. J.A. Bayona masterfully uses light and shadow to create a really compelling opening that is sure to be one of the summer’s best action scenes. And that is a trait that is brought to the rest of the film. Fallen Kingdom is absolutely beautiful.
The cinematography is exquisite and much better than the staid filming style of Bayona’s predecessor. There are scenes throughout this film that feel like they could be pulled straight from the screen and hung in your living room: it’s gorgeous.
Despite Bayona’s inexperience at creating a juggernaut film like this, his previous films are felt throughout. There’s a deep, earthy colour palatte that is the polar opposite of what we saw in Jurassic World. Where that was clinical and far too blue, Bayona’s colourings feel real, raw and grounded in reality.
The cast is also an incredibly strong part of the film. Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard both sizzle with on-screen chemistry and there’s a cheeky nod to the backlash Howard faced after wearing high-heels for much of Jurassic World’s runtime. Newcomers Justice Smith and Daniella Pineda are terrific as a jumpy IT wiz and veterinary surgeon respectively. James Cromwell is nicely ret-conned into the story as John Hammond’s business partner, Benjamin, and adds a touch of class to proceedings.
Rafe Spall is excellent as the slimy assistant of Benjami, Eli and Toby Jones hams up the screen as an auctioneer. So far, so good then?
The first half of the film, situated on Isla Nublar as it pops into life is astounding and features some of the best destruction ever put to film. The CGI is leaps and bounds ahead of its predecessor and the dinosaurs feel absolutely real throughout. What I didn’t expect however, is poignancy. There are moments in Fallen Kingdom that have real emotional whack, especially as the rescue operation leaves the island. A lone Brachiosaur standing at the dock is heart-breaking and beautifully done.
J.A. Bayona utilises his horror roots beautifully and there is no denying it is the best-looking film in the series
Unfortunately, Fallen Kingdom’s biggest selling point is also its biggest downfall. In trying to do something new, the film stalls as we head to a gothic-esque mansion for the final hour. The confines of the house slow the pacing right down and despite the constant onslaught of action, it really does lag. The special effects and animatronics remain flawless and the action is thrilling, but the script lets them down.
Speaking of the script, this was Jurassic World’s biggest weakness and the same can be said here. Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connelly should be applauded for bringing this franchise back from the edge of extinction, but my god, they cannot write dialogue to save their lives. The characters often converse in what feels like speech bubbles and this can really bring you out of the moment.
There’s also a laughably poor plot twist that feels like it was written by a five-year-old to add some wow factor to the film’s final third. It fails miserably. Then there’s the film’s ‘villain’, the Indoraptor. This genetically modified beast is a sorely underdeveloped entity throughout the film. Sure, she’s menacing enough, but it feels shoehorned in. Trevorrow has stated that Fallen Kingdom will be the last Jurassic movie to feature hybrid dinosaurs: this is absolutely the right decision.
Trevorrow has said that his Jurassic vision is a new trilogy, but the ending of Fallen Kingdom feels like it simply can’t be fixed in one more film. It’s Planet of the Apes-esque in scale.
When we take a look at the score, it’s a story of two halves. Michael Giacchino is one of the greatest composers working today and his music for Jurassic World was absolutely sublime. Here, however, the music is unrecognisable as Jurassic in its construction. John Williams’ iconic theme is rendered to a few bars here and there and that’s a real shame. It’s a good score most definitely, but it could have been so much better.
Finally, we have to circle back around to the cast and the elephant in the room: Jeff Goldblum. His return as Dr Ian Malcolm in this film adds a nice bookend, beginning and end, but you have seen all but two or three lines of his dialogue in the trailer. A horrifically underused presence, but a nice cameo nonetheless.
Overall, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is a solid addition to the ever-expanding series. J.A. Bayona utilises his horror roots beautifully and there is no denying it is the best-looking film in the series with superb set pieces, well-choreographed action and gorgeous cinematography. However, once again the film is let down by poor scriptwriting from Trevorrow and Connelly and a second half that struggles to keep pace with the stunning first.
Is it better than Jurassic World? Well that’s for you to decide, but comparing them is almost impossible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/06/07/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-review-a-bold-new-era/
Ok, ok, let’s start from the beginning. The Jurassic franchise has often been criticised for relying too heavily on the same story points to make a film. 2015’s Jurassic World, whilst becoming one of the highest-grossing films of all time, was lambasted for being a modern-day reimagining of 1993’s classic, Jurassic Park. And while some of that criticism was justified, it was still pure sugary, popcorn entertainment.
Now, three years later, director J.A. Bayona (The Impossible, A Monster Calls) takes over from Colin Trevorrow to bring us a film that starts out like we expect, but ends on a note that will transform the series beyond recognition. The question is, does it actually work?
Three years after the destruction of the Jurassic World theme park, Owen Grady (Pratt) and Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) return to the island of Isla Nublar to save the remaining dinosaurs from a volcano that’s about to erupt. They soon encounter terrifying new breeds of gigantic dinos while uncovering a conspiracy that threatens the entire planet and our own existence.
Fallen Kingdom begins with a pre-title card sequence situated in the lagoon of Isla Nublar that is up there with the best in the series. J.A. Bayona masterfully uses light and shadow to create a really compelling opening that is sure to be one of the summer’s best action scenes. And that is a trait that is brought to the rest of the film. Fallen Kingdom is absolutely beautiful.
The cinematography is exquisite and much better than the staid filming style of Bayona’s predecessor. There are scenes throughout this film that feel like they could be pulled straight from the screen and hung in your living room: it’s gorgeous.
Despite Bayona’s inexperience at creating a juggernaut film like this, his previous films are felt throughout. There’s a deep, earthy colour palatte that is the polar opposite of what we saw in Jurassic World. Where that was clinical and far too blue, Bayona’s colourings feel real, raw and grounded in reality.
The cast is also an incredibly strong part of the film. Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard both sizzle with on-screen chemistry and there’s a cheeky nod to the backlash Howard faced after wearing high-heels for much of Jurassic World’s runtime. Newcomers Justice Smith and Daniella Pineda are terrific as a jumpy IT wiz and veterinary surgeon respectively. James Cromwell is nicely ret-conned into the story as John Hammond’s business partner, Benjamin, and adds a touch of class to proceedings.
Rafe Spall is excellent as the slimy assistant of Benjami, Eli and Toby Jones hams up the screen as an auctioneer. So far, so good then?
The first half of the film, situated on Isla Nublar as it pops into life is astounding and features some of the best destruction ever put to film. The CGI is leaps and bounds ahead of its predecessor and the dinosaurs feel absolutely real throughout. What I didn’t expect however, is poignancy. There are moments in Fallen Kingdom that have real emotional whack, especially as the rescue operation leaves the island. A lone Brachiosaur standing at the dock is heart-breaking and beautifully done.
J.A. Bayona utilises his horror roots beautifully and there is no denying it is the best-looking film in the series
Unfortunately, Fallen Kingdom’s biggest selling point is also its biggest downfall. In trying to do something new, the film stalls as we head to a gothic-esque mansion for the final hour. The confines of the house slow the pacing right down and despite the constant onslaught of action, it really does lag. The special effects and animatronics remain flawless and the action is thrilling, but the script lets them down.
Speaking of the script, this was Jurassic World’s biggest weakness and the same can be said here. Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connelly should be applauded for bringing this franchise back from the edge of extinction, but my god, they cannot write dialogue to save their lives. The characters often converse in what feels like speech bubbles and this can really bring you out of the moment.
There’s also a laughably poor plot twist that feels like it was written by a five-year-old to add some wow factor to the film’s final third. It fails miserably. Then there’s the film’s ‘villain’, the Indoraptor. This genetically modified beast is a sorely underdeveloped entity throughout the film. Sure, she’s menacing enough, but it feels shoehorned in. Trevorrow has stated that Fallen Kingdom will be the last Jurassic movie to feature hybrid dinosaurs: this is absolutely the right decision.
Trevorrow has said that his Jurassic vision is a new trilogy, but the ending of Fallen Kingdom feels like it simply can’t be fixed in one more film. It’s Planet of the Apes-esque in scale.
When we take a look at the score, it’s a story of two halves. Michael Giacchino is one of the greatest composers working today and his music for Jurassic World was absolutely sublime. Here, however, the music is unrecognisable as Jurassic in its construction. John Williams’ iconic theme is rendered to a few bars here and there and that’s a real shame. It’s a good score most definitely, but it could have been so much better.
Finally, we have to circle back around to the cast and the elephant in the room: Jeff Goldblum. His return as Dr Ian Malcolm in this film adds a nice bookend, beginning and end, but you have seen all but two or three lines of his dialogue in the trailer. A horrifically underused presence, but a nice cameo nonetheless.
Overall, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is a solid addition to the ever-expanding series. J.A. Bayona utilises his horror roots beautifully and there is no denying it is the best-looking film in the series with superb set pieces, well-choreographed action and gorgeous cinematography. However, once again the film is let down by poor scriptwriting from Trevorrow and Connelly and a second half that struggles to keep pace with the stunning first.
Is it better than Jurassic World? Well that’s for you to decide, but comparing them is almost impossible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/06/07/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-review-a-bold-new-era/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Siempre estamos solas”
Alfonso Cuarón‘s “Roma” has been lauded with praise and award’s hype, and I must admit to have been a little bit snooty about it. A black-and-white Spanish language film with subtitles that – to be honest – looks a bit dreary: can it really be that good? Having now (finally) seen it on Netflix I can confirm that’s a big YES from my point of view. It’s a novelty of a glacially slow film that grips like a vice.
A primer on 70’s Mexican History.
This is a film about ordinary life set against tumultuous times. Set in the Colonia Roma district of Mexico City (if you were puzzled, as I was, where the title came from) it is an “Upstairs, Downstairs” tale of Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), a maid and nanny to a middle class family in the early 70’s.
There are two intertwined stories here: Cleo’s personal story and that of the family background in which she works.
Cleo has a pleasant enough life working as partners in crime in the household with Adela (Nancy García García). Life is about getting the work done (well, more of less), keeping the four children happy – to who she is devoted – and scraping enough by to spend her downtime with her martial arts boyfriend Ramón (José Manuel Guerrero Mendoza).
Meanwhile the lady of the house Senora Sofia (Marina de Tavira) has an affluent and cosseted lifestyle amid her loving family.
But times are about to change for all of the players, as events – not just the events of the ‘Mexican Dirty War’ of 1971 going on in the background – transpire to change all their lives forever.
A masterclass in framing.
It’s criminal that I wasn’t able to get to see this in the cinema. Since every frame of this movie is a masterpiece of detail. There is just so much going on that your eyes dart this way and that, and you could probably watch it five times and see more. Even the opening titles are mesmerising, as the cobbled floor becomes a screen and an airliner lazily flies across it.
Even major action sequences, that other directors would fill the screen with (“Do you KNOW how much this scene is costing for God’s sake??”), are seen as they would typically be seen in real life – second hand, from a place of hiding. This is typified by the depiction of the Corpus Christi Massacre of June ’71, where the military, and more controversially the elite El Halconazo (The Hawks) of the Mexican army, turned on a student protest. Most of the action is seen as glimpses through the windows by the characters during a shopping trip to the second floor of a department store. How this was enacted and directed is a mystery to me, but it works just brilliantly.
A masterclass in pacing and panning.
One of Cuarón’s trademarks is the long take (think “Children of Men”) and here he (literally!) goes to town with the technique. An incredibly impressive scene has Cleo and Adela running through the streets of the City to meet their lovers at the cinema. It’s a continuous pan that again defies belief in the brilliance of its execution.
Even the mundane act of Cleo tidying up the apartment is done with a glorious slow pan around the room. Some of this panning is done to set the mood for the film (“Get settled in… this is going to be a long haul”) but others manage to evoke a sense of rising dread, an example at the beach being a brilliant case in point.
The cinematography was supposed to have been done by the great Emmanuel Lubezki, but he was unavailable so Cuarón did it himself! And it’s quite brilliant. So, that’s a lesson learned then that will reduce the budget for next time!
A personal story.
Cuarón wrote the script. Of course he did… it’s his story! He’s the same age as I am, so was nine years old for the autobiographical events featured in the film (he is the kid who gets punished for eavesdropping). Numerous aspects of the film are from his own childhood, including the fact that his younger brother kept spookily coming out with things that he’d done in his past lives! It’s a painful true story of his upbringing and of the life of Liboria Rodríguez: “Libo” to whom the film is dedicated.
Where the script is delightful is in never destroying the mood with lengthy exposition. Both of the key stories evolve slowly and only gradually do you work out what’s really going on. This is grown-up cinema at its finest.
It’s also a love letter from Cuarón to the cinema of his youth, a passion that sparked his eventual career. We see a number of trips to the local fleapit, and in one cute scene we seen a clip from the Gregory Peck space epic “Marooned”: the film that inspired Cuarón’s own masterpiece “Gravity“.
A naturalistic cast.
Casting a large proportion of the cast from unknowns feels like a great risk, but its a risk that pays off handsomely, particularly in the case of Yalitza Aparicio, who is breathtakingly naturalistic. Cuarón withheld the script from his cast, so some of the “acting” is not acting at all – specifically a gruelling and heartrending scene featuring Cleo later in the film. That’s real and raw emotion on the screen.
Marina de Tavira, although an actress with a track record, is also mightily impressive as the beleaguered and troubled wife.
Final Thoughts.
This is a masterpiece, and thoroughly deserves the “Best Picture” awards it has been getting. It’s certainly my odds on favourite, as well as being my pick, for the Oscar on Sunday. Will it be for everyone? Probably not.
There are some scenes which feel slightly ostentatious. A forest fire scene is brilliantly done (“Put out the small fires kids”), but then a guy in a monster suit pulls off his head-wear and starts singing a long and mournful song. Sorry?
There will also be many I suspect who will find the leisurely pace of the film excruciating; “JUST GET ON WITH IT” I hear them yelling at the screen. But if you give it the time and let it soak in, then you WILL be moved and you WILL remember the film long after you’ve seen it.
I remain cross however that this was released through Netflix. This is a film that deserves a full and widespread cinema release in 70mm format. It’s like taking an iPhone snap of the Mona Lisa and putting the phone on display instead.
A primer on 70’s Mexican History.
This is a film about ordinary life set against tumultuous times. Set in the Colonia Roma district of Mexico City (if you were puzzled, as I was, where the title came from) it is an “Upstairs, Downstairs” tale of Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), a maid and nanny to a middle class family in the early 70’s.
There are two intertwined stories here: Cleo’s personal story and that of the family background in which she works.
Cleo has a pleasant enough life working as partners in crime in the household with Adela (Nancy García García). Life is about getting the work done (well, more of less), keeping the four children happy – to who she is devoted – and scraping enough by to spend her downtime with her martial arts boyfriend Ramón (José Manuel Guerrero Mendoza).
Meanwhile the lady of the house Senora Sofia (Marina de Tavira) has an affluent and cosseted lifestyle amid her loving family.
But times are about to change for all of the players, as events – not just the events of the ‘Mexican Dirty War’ of 1971 going on in the background – transpire to change all their lives forever.
A masterclass in framing.
It’s criminal that I wasn’t able to get to see this in the cinema. Since every frame of this movie is a masterpiece of detail. There is just so much going on that your eyes dart this way and that, and you could probably watch it five times and see more. Even the opening titles are mesmerising, as the cobbled floor becomes a screen and an airliner lazily flies across it.
Even major action sequences, that other directors would fill the screen with (“Do you KNOW how much this scene is costing for God’s sake??”), are seen as they would typically be seen in real life – second hand, from a place of hiding. This is typified by the depiction of the Corpus Christi Massacre of June ’71, where the military, and more controversially the elite El Halconazo (The Hawks) of the Mexican army, turned on a student protest. Most of the action is seen as glimpses through the windows by the characters during a shopping trip to the second floor of a department store. How this was enacted and directed is a mystery to me, but it works just brilliantly.
A masterclass in pacing and panning.
One of Cuarón’s trademarks is the long take (think “Children of Men”) and here he (literally!) goes to town with the technique. An incredibly impressive scene has Cleo and Adela running through the streets of the City to meet their lovers at the cinema. It’s a continuous pan that again defies belief in the brilliance of its execution.
Even the mundane act of Cleo tidying up the apartment is done with a glorious slow pan around the room. Some of this panning is done to set the mood for the film (“Get settled in… this is going to be a long haul”) but others manage to evoke a sense of rising dread, an example at the beach being a brilliant case in point.
The cinematography was supposed to have been done by the great Emmanuel Lubezki, but he was unavailable so Cuarón did it himself! And it’s quite brilliant. So, that’s a lesson learned then that will reduce the budget for next time!
A personal story.
Cuarón wrote the script. Of course he did… it’s his story! He’s the same age as I am, so was nine years old for the autobiographical events featured in the film (he is the kid who gets punished for eavesdropping). Numerous aspects of the film are from his own childhood, including the fact that his younger brother kept spookily coming out with things that he’d done in his past lives! It’s a painful true story of his upbringing and of the life of Liboria Rodríguez: “Libo” to whom the film is dedicated.
Where the script is delightful is in never destroying the mood with lengthy exposition. Both of the key stories evolve slowly and only gradually do you work out what’s really going on. This is grown-up cinema at its finest.
It’s also a love letter from Cuarón to the cinema of his youth, a passion that sparked his eventual career. We see a number of trips to the local fleapit, and in one cute scene we seen a clip from the Gregory Peck space epic “Marooned”: the film that inspired Cuarón’s own masterpiece “Gravity“.
A naturalistic cast.
Casting a large proportion of the cast from unknowns feels like a great risk, but its a risk that pays off handsomely, particularly in the case of Yalitza Aparicio, who is breathtakingly naturalistic. Cuarón withheld the script from his cast, so some of the “acting” is not acting at all – specifically a gruelling and heartrending scene featuring Cleo later in the film. That’s real and raw emotion on the screen.
Marina de Tavira, although an actress with a track record, is also mightily impressive as the beleaguered and troubled wife.
Final Thoughts.
This is a masterpiece, and thoroughly deserves the “Best Picture” awards it has been getting. It’s certainly my odds on favourite, as well as being my pick, for the Oscar on Sunday. Will it be for everyone? Probably not.
There are some scenes which feel slightly ostentatious. A forest fire scene is brilliantly done (“Put out the small fires kids”), but then a guy in a monster suit pulls off his head-wear and starts singing a long and mournful song. Sorry?
There will also be many I suspect who will find the leisurely pace of the film excruciating; “JUST GET ON WITH IT” I hear them yelling at the screen. But if you give it the time and let it soak in, then you WILL be moved and you WILL remember the film long after you’ve seen it.
I remain cross however that this was released through Netflix. This is a film that deserves a full and widespread cinema release in 70mm format. It’s like taking an iPhone snap of the Mona Lisa and putting the phone on display instead.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
Mothergamer (1511 KP) rated the PC version of The Witcher III: Wild Hunt in Video Games
Apr 3, 2019
I was excited to play Witcher 3 Complete Edition as I had never played it before, yet I had read all the books about the Witcher Geralt and liked them a lot. I have not played the first two games, but they are both on my to play list. Geralt's world is interesting filled with complex characters, fantastic monsters, and great storytelling. All I can say is that I have a ton of games to play and some things get backlogged. I still have a stack of PS3 games to play and of course, I'll be playing the remastered Skyrim for PS4 when it comes out and that's another game I haven't played yet, but for this moment let's discuss how much I loved Witcher 3.
Yes, I loved Witcher 3. I stayed up way too late many a night playing this game because I was having so much fun running around killing monsters and helping people in need. My vision of Geralt was someone who did his best to do the right thing and that sometimes that meant siding with the occasional monster because there were times when humans were the real monsters. The story drew me in right away and these were characters and lore I was familiar with so I was thrilled to explore the entire world in the game. Truly, I unlocked entire maps because I just had to know what everything was. The areas that were too high a level for me at the time I made a note of where they were and came back later. I think it's great when a game makes exploration fun and it definitely helped having Geralt's horse, Roach to help that exploration go a bit faster.
The environments in Witcher 3 are amazing. I would find myself stopping and just looking around at the scenery whether it was roaming through a forest or wandering the streets of a city. The attention to minute details was quite impressive. The gameplay is great. The gaming controls are fine tuned to make battles fun without feeling frustrating and the camera angles are spot on which made a terrific gaming experience for me. The music for Witcher 3 is beautiful. My favorite music was for the area of Skellige. Skellige was also my favorite place to explore because it was so pretty there with all the wild flowers and forests. I genuinely liked the people there too because many of them did not treat Geralt with complete suspicion or call him a freak the way they did in cities like Novigrad. They respected him and what he did; the fact that he was a Witcher and had cat eyes didn't really come up much. I felt that showed a lot of variety in the thinking of the people in the different areas.
There are mini games to play as well. I enjoyed the horse races because those were fun and worth the time and effort. They gave some great rewards such as saddle bags that increased my inventory space and saddles that increased my horse's stamina and speed. Then there's a card game called Gwent which you can play with various people ranging from innkeepers to some of Geralt's friends. I really tried with Gwent. It was a bit confusing for me and I found myself looking up videos on YouTube just to try and get the gist of it, and it helped a bit. However, a huge shout out to my friend Danny for giving a simple explanation of how it worked and the best strategy to winning because that helped more. I mainly just wanted to finish the Gwent side quests I had and I managed to do that. After that, I no longer bothered playing Gwent. It just wasn't my thing, but I will say graphics wise it was a well designed mini game and while it was a tad frustrating for me, I understood why many of my friends enjoyed it. There's also fist fights tournaments (think Fight Club) that Geralt can participate in. I aced the heck out of those and won all those prize coin purses. My favorite fight was the Rock Troll because it was interesting and I got to learn his name at the end; a reward for winning the fight.
Level grinding was not a chore for me in the game because there were so many quests and Witcher contracts which involves hunting specific monsters or investigating things that might involve monsters. These offer good experience and a lot of money for Geralt. There are times when the leveling feels a bit uneven because sometimes the main story quests give more experience than a few of the contracts and side quests. It's not a big deal, but it is noticeable. The skills menu for unlocking Geralt's Witcher abilities and upgrading them is easy to navigate and quite user friendly. My favorite skill was an upgrade of the Axii skill known as Puppet which could make enemies fight each other. The cutscenes and voice acting are superb; while the loading times are practically seamless which made me very happy.
First of all, I don't like anyone telling me what to do. Ask my parents. There was a time when I was told to eat my vegetables when I was a kid and instead of doing that, I stealthily put them under my chair and claimed my plate was clean because I wanted to go play with my friends. Hey, I was four. What the heck did I know about being a mastermind? My parents bought it for two minutes until they discovered it and yes, it was wrong of me to think that I didn't have to listen and tried to fool my parents but this gives you an idea about how long I've been like this. Don't get me wrong, if you just have a conversation with me and we have a healthy discussion I will listen to what you have to say. What I don't respond well to is comments like, "You should NOT be playing that game because of this, that, or the other thing." Ultimately I like to decide and think for myself and I think everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to play a game, read a book, or see a movie.
While playing Witcher 3 two things came up about this which were I should not play the game because there are no people of color in it and that it was sexist to women. I honestly did not know there was a huge hullabaloo about these things when the game was first released because honestly I get busy with things going on in my life and I tend to just choose games that pique my interest. I thought the game looked interesting, so I bought it. That's really all there was to it.
As for the second aspect regarding the game being sexist towards women, I just find myself wondering where this comes from. There are several, I repeat, several strong female characters in the lore of Witcher and in the game. How is any of it sexist towards women? Look, I understand not liking all the boobies in the brothels and the sexual scenes in the game. It's not for everyone and some folks are just not down for it. It never bothered me and some of those sex scenes have some amusing humor in them. The argument that Geralt feels no emotions so it's sexist towards women is utter crap. If a person takes the time to actually read any of the books, read the lore, or actually tried to play the game they would know that Geralt can not express emotions on his face because of all the mutations that Witchers go through. Geralt actually feels very deeply especially when it comes to people like Yennefer who is his true love, Ciri who is like a daughter to him, and of course Vesemir who is a mentor/father figure to him. The fact that he can't physically express those emotions due to him essentially being a mutant shouldn't count against him.
The issues with things like Ciri being called a bitch by men or Yennefer being called a whore; those are things that happen in the real world and they sure as hell happened way too often throughout history. Part of the storytelling of many artistic things is that it finds a creative way to discuss real world issues and inform you hey, this kind of thing happens open your eyes. The part I loved is that these women did not need saving. They handled it themselves. The man who called Ciri a bitch? She broke his nose and she stuck up for herself. Yennefer handled the man who called her a whore and she held her own very well. These are not wilting flowers. These are strong, intelligent, and brave women in the story and I was thrilled that a fantasy game had them. Honestly, as soon as I heard the sentence, "Feminist Frequency said..." I felt my eyes rolling because this is such a stretch. I'm not saying that they're not entitled to their opinion because they are, but I did not see any evidence of that in the game at all and I disagree.
Games are meant to be fun and for me Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt was so much fun and one of the best games I've ever played. The story, the open exploration, and the diverse characters were amazing and I enjoyed it immensely. Now, I'm going to play through again on new game plus because the completionist in me wants to get all the different endings and the game is worth playing multiple times if one wishes.
Yes, I loved Witcher 3. I stayed up way too late many a night playing this game because I was having so much fun running around killing monsters and helping people in need. My vision of Geralt was someone who did his best to do the right thing and that sometimes that meant siding with the occasional monster because there were times when humans were the real monsters. The story drew me in right away and these were characters and lore I was familiar with so I was thrilled to explore the entire world in the game. Truly, I unlocked entire maps because I just had to know what everything was. The areas that were too high a level for me at the time I made a note of where they were and came back later. I think it's great when a game makes exploration fun and it definitely helped having Geralt's horse, Roach to help that exploration go a bit faster.
The environments in Witcher 3 are amazing. I would find myself stopping and just looking around at the scenery whether it was roaming through a forest or wandering the streets of a city. The attention to minute details was quite impressive. The gameplay is great. The gaming controls are fine tuned to make battles fun without feeling frustrating and the camera angles are spot on which made a terrific gaming experience for me. The music for Witcher 3 is beautiful. My favorite music was for the area of Skellige. Skellige was also my favorite place to explore because it was so pretty there with all the wild flowers and forests. I genuinely liked the people there too because many of them did not treat Geralt with complete suspicion or call him a freak the way they did in cities like Novigrad. They respected him and what he did; the fact that he was a Witcher and had cat eyes didn't really come up much. I felt that showed a lot of variety in the thinking of the people in the different areas.
There are mini games to play as well. I enjoyed the horse races because those were fun and worth the time and effort. They gave some great rewards such as saddle bags that increased my inventory space and saddles that increased my horse's stamina and speed. Then there's a card game called Gwent which you can play with various people ranging from innkeepers to some of Geralt's friends. I really tried with Gwent. It was a bit confusing for me and I found myself looking up videos on YouTube just to try and get the gist of it, and it helped a bit. However, a huge shout out to my friend Danny for giving a simple explanation of how it worked and the best strategy to winning because that helped more. I mainly just wanted to finish the Gwent side quests I had and I managed to do that. After that, I no longer bothered playing Gwent. It just wasn't my thing, but I will say graphics wise it was a well designed mini game and while it was a tad frustrating for me, I understood why many of my friends enjoyed it. There's also fist fights tournaments (think Fight Club) that Geralt can participate in. I aced the heck out of those and won all those prize coin purses. My favorite fight was the Rock Troll because it was interesting and I got to learn his name at the end; a reward for winning the fight.
Level grinding was not a chore for me in the game because there were so many quests and Witcher contracts which involves hunting specific monsters or investigating things that might involve monsters. These offer good experience and a lot of money for Geralt. There are times when the leveling feels a bit uneven because sometimes the main story quests give more experience than a few of the contracts and side quests. It's not a big deal, but it is noticeable. The skills menu for unlocking Geralt's Witcher abilities and upgrading them is easy to navigate and quite user friendly. My favorite skill was an upgrade of the Axii skill known as Puppet which could make enemies fight each other. The cutscenes and voice acting are superb; while the loading times are practically seamless which made me very happy.
First of all, I don't like anyone telling me what to do. Ask my parents. There was a time when I was told to eat my vegetables when I was a kid and instead of doing that, I stealthily put them under my chair and claimed my plate was clean because I wanted to go play with my friends. Hey, I was four. What the heck did I know about being a mastermind? My parents bought it for two minutes until they discovered it and yes, it was wrong of me to think that I didn't have to listen and tried to fool my parents but this gives you an idea about how long I've been like this. Don't get me wrong, if you just have a conversation with me and we have a healthy discussion I will listen to what you have to say. What I don't respond well to is comments like, "You should NOT be playing that game because of this, that, or the other thing." Ultimately I like to decide and think for myself and I think everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to play a game, read a book, or see a movie.
While playing Witcher 3 two things came up about this which were I should not play the game because there are no people of color in it and that it was sexist to women. I honestly did not know there was a huge hullabaloo about these things when the game was first released because honestly I get busy with things going on in my life and I tend to just choose games that pique my interest. I thought the game looked interesting, so I bought it. That's really all there was to it.
As for the second aspect regarding the game being sexist towards women, I just find myself wondering where this comes from. There are several, I repeat, several strong female characters in the lore of Witcher and in the game. How is any of it sexist towards women? Look, I understand not liking all the boobies in the brothels and the sexual scenes in the game. It's not for everyone and some folks are just not down for it. It never bothered me and some of those sex scenes have some amusing humor in them. The argument that Geralt feels no emotions so it's sexist towards women is utter crap. If a person takes the time to actually read any of the books, read the lore, or actually tried to play the game they would know that Geralt can not express emotions on his face because of all the mutations that Witchers go through. Geralt actually feels very deeply especially when it comes to people like Yennefer who is his true love, Ciri who is like a daughter to him, and of course Vesemir who is a mentor/father figure to him. The fact that he can't physically express those emotions due to him essentially being a mutant shouldn't count against him.
The issues with things like Ciri being called a bitch by men or Yennefer being called a whore; those are things that happen in the real world and they sure as hell happened way too often throughout history. Part of the storytelling of many artistic things is that it finds a creative way to discuss real world issues and inform you hey, this kind of thing happens open your eyes. The part I loved is that these women did not need saving. They handled it themselves. The man who called Ciri a bitch? She broke his nose and she stuck up for herself. Yennefer handled the man who called her a whore and she held her own very well. These are not wilting flowers. These are strong, intelligent, and brave women in the story and I was thrilled that a fantasy game had them. Honestly, as soon as I heard the sentence, "Feminist Frequency said..." I felt my eyes rolling because this is such a stretch. I'm not saying that they're not entitled to their opinion because they are, but I did not see any evidence of that in the game at all and I disagree.
Games are meant to be fun and for me Witcher 3: The Wild Hunt was so much fun and one of the best games I've ever played. The story, the open exploration, and the diverse characters were amazing and I enjoyed it immensely. Now, I'm going to play through again on new game plus because the completionist in me wants to get all the different endings and the game is worth playing multiple times if one wishes.