Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 28, 2019 (Updated Oct 25, 2019)
Another fantastic entry into Tarantino's legacy
If there's one thing that springs to mind after watching Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, is that's it's not particularly user friendly, it's not easily consumed.
It's a loooong film (perhaps a little too long), and I feel that even some proper Tarantino fans may struggle to get along with it.
The film feels like a full on love letter to Hollywood during the late 60s, and Tarantino's passion for this period is obvious.
The audience are spoiled with gorgeous shots throughout, set to a backdrop of great music (as per usual).
The cast are fantastic - I've mentioned before on here that I'm an unashamed Brad Pitt fanboy, and nothing here changes that. Leonardo DiCaprio is also great (just as he was in Django Unchained) as the two of them stick by each other as Rick Dalton's (DiCaprio) acting career starts to waver.
Living just up the road from Rick are Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate (played by a hugely charming Margot Robbie).
As the film progresses, I found myself wondering what story was trying to be told, but it does all tie up in a very Tarantino way. It's pretty glorious (no spoilers here).
The plot certainly benefits from the viewer having prior knowledge to the horrific Manson family/Tate murder.
The final 20 minutes is where things ramp up, after a very slow burning 2 hours... and after Tarantino's last 3 movies, which I found more action heavy than some of his early work, it's a different approach, and a reason why I think some people may struggle with it.
The pacing is, weirdly, most akin to Death Proof - an extremely dialogue heavy movie with a crazy final act.
But the huge amount of dialogue we're subjected to is pretty much perfect. It's a real treat if you have the patience.
Once Upon a Time... can proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of Tarantino's portfolio.
It's a loooong film (perhaps a little too long), and I feel that even some proper Tarantino fans may struggle to get along with it.
The film feels like a full on love letter to Hollywood during the late 60s, and Tarantino's passion for this period is obvious.
The audience are spoiled with gorgeous shots throughout, set to a backdrop of great music (as per usual).
The cast are fantastic - I've mentioned before on here that I'm an unashamed Brad Pitt fanboy, and nothing here changes that. Leonardo DiCaprio is also great (just as he was in Django Unchained) as the two of them stick by each other as Rick Dalton's (DiCaprio) acting career starts to waver.
Living just up the road from Rick are Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate (played by a hugely charming Margot Robbie).
As the film progresses, I found myself wondering what story was trying to be told, but it does all tie up in a very Tarantino way. It's pretty glorious (no spoilers here).
The plot certainly benefits from the viewer having prior knowledge to the horrific Manson family/Tate murder.
The final 20 minutes is where things ramp up, after a very slow burning 2 hours... and after Tarantino's last 3 movies, which I found more action heavy than some of his early work, it's a different approach, and a reason why I think some people may struggle with it.
The pacing is, weirdly, most akin to Death Proof - an extremely dialogue heavy movie with a crazy final act.
But the huge amount of dialogue we're subjected to is pretty much perfect. It's a real treat if you have the patience.
Once Upon a Time... can proudly stand shoulder to shoulder with the rest of Tarantino's portfolio.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Man Down (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
This Dito Montiel (Fighting, The Son of No One) directed film is a look at mental health and how soldiers returning from war can be affected by the tragedy of war and life.
This film tries to put us inside the mind of a soldier and they lead up to his deployment to war, the trauma that can be suffered at war and the result of seeing things that can’t be unseen. It begins with U.S. Marine Gabriel Drummer (Shia LaBeouf) searching for his son, Johnathan (Charlie Shotwell), and wife, Natalie (Kate Mara), in a post-apocalyptic America.
His only company is his best friend and fellow war veteran Devin Roberts (Jai Courtney). We then flash back to a counseling session between Gabriel and Counselor Peyton (Gary Oldman). They are recounting an incident that happened while Gabriel and Devin were in the field as well as talk about the relationship between the two brothers in arms. Peyton probes Gabriel for answers to what happened in the field and what his life at home will be like when he returns. The story takes us through Gabriel’s journey from boot camp to his search to be reunited with his wife and child.
The beginning of the film is so scattered with flash backs and flash forwards it is not the easiest story to follow. Montiel tries to tie the story all together at the end but it really done quickly and sloppily. There was no really good flow to the film.
The message at the end was really powerful but there execution to get there really didn’t work for me. The cast individual performances were good but I thought that as a whole there was not cohesion.
The relationships between all the characters seemed forced and it was hard to get emotionally invested in what should have been and emotionally compelling story. LaBeouf does commit and his performance I would say the bright spot. I think the intention was that the end of the movie should be a surprise or twist but the ending for me was never really in doubt.
There were points when the film seemed to have momentum but that was stopped by a flash back or forward that would take you out of the moment. All trying to set up a conclusion that seemed inevitable.
The idea of bringing awareness to a real issue in our country, of returning veterans suffering from PTSD, is a noble one and I applaud them for trying. I just wish the execution would have been better overall.
This film tries to put us inside the mind of a soldier and they lead up to his deployment to war, the trauma that can be suffered at war and the result of seeing things that can’t be unseen. It begins with U.S. Marine Gabriel Drummer (Shia LaBeouf) searching for his son, Johnathan (Charlie Shotwell), and wife, Natalie (Kate Mara), in a post-apocalyptic America.
His only company is his best friend and fellow war veteran Devin Roberts (Jai Courtney). We then flash back to a counseling session between Gabriel and Counselor Peyton (Gary Oldman). They are recounting an incident that happened while Gabriel and Devin were in the field as well as talk about the relationship between the two brothers in arms. Peyton probes Gabriel for answers to what happened in the field and what his life at home will be like when he returns. The story takes us through Gabriel’s journey from boot camp to his search to be reunited with his wife and child.
The beginning of the film is so scattered with flash backs and flash forwards it is not the easiest story to follow. Montiel tries to tie the story all together at the end but it really done quickly and sloppily. There was no really good flow to the film.
The message at the end was really powerful but there execution to get there really didn’t work for me. The cast individual performances were good but I thought that as a whole there was not cohesion.
The relationships between all the characters seemed forced and it was hard to get emotionally invested in what should have been and emotionally compelling story. LaBeouf does commit and his performance I would say the bright spot. I think the intention was that the end of the movie should be a surprise or twist but the ending for me was never really in doubt.
There were points when the film seemed to have momentum but that was stopped by a flash back or forward that would take you out of the moment. All trying to set up a conclusion that seemed inevitable.
The idea of bringing awareness to a real issue in our country, of returning veterans suffering from PTSD, is a noble one and I applaud them for trying. I just wish the execution would have been better overall.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated One of us is Lying in Books
Sep 6, 2018
The Pacings (2 more)
The Plot
The Characters
A Great Read!
I forgot how I came across One of Us Is Lying by Karen M. McManus, but I'm really glad I did. This story pulled me in right from the start and never let go!
The pacing for One of Us Is Lying is fantastic. I was fully immersed in the story as soon as I read the first sentence. Never did the pacing falter. It was quick and enjoyable. This was one of those books where I wished real life could have left me alone so I could have finished it in one sitting.
I found the plot for One of Us Is Lying to be very interesting. I enjoyed how it kind of felt like The Breakfast Club movie, but it was much much more interesting. It was good to see a group of kids from different backgrounds coming together instead of blaming each other for once. Usually in young adult novels, there's so much bickering. That wasn't the case in One of Us Is Lying. There are a few plot twists. I did figure out who the murderer was very early in the book. I felt like it was kind of obvious. However, there was one major plot twist I didn't predict. I feel like this book does tie up all loose ends.
The world building was done very well. I thought the author, Karen M. McManus, did a great job in writing about a high school setting as well as a criminal setting. Everything felt very real. I felt like I was one of the teens being accused of murder. Everything felt personal to me which is definitely a good thing. I've never been interrogated by the police, but McManus made me feel like I was in the interrogation room each time was of the teens was questioned. I can't fault the world building one bit. It is solid.
I loved the characters in One of Us is Lying. I also loved how diverse a lot of the characters were. I think my favorite character, overall, was Cooper. Maybe it's because we're both southern, but I just loved him. He seemed so caring and sweet. I also enjoyed the other characters of Nate, Bronwyn, and Addy as well. It was nice to see the homecoming princess as not just a one dimensional person. All of the characters were thoroughly fleshed out. Character development was spot on.
Trigger warnings include death, drugs, some violence, and swearing.
All in all, One of Us Is Lying was such a fantastic read. I enjoyed it more than I thought I was going to. It's got a great cast of characters, an interesting plot, and the world building is fantastic. I would definitely recommend One of Us Is Lying by Karen M. McManus to everyone aged 14+.
The pacing for One of Us Is Lying is fantastic. I was fully immersed in the story as soon as I read the first sentence. Never did the pacing falter. It was quick and enjoyable. This was one of those books where I wished real life could have left me alone so I could have finished it in one sitting.
I found the plot for One of Us Is Lying to be very interesting. I enjoyed how it kind of felt like The Breakfast Club movie, but it was much much more interesting. It was good to see a group of kids from different backgrounds coming together instead of blaming each other for once. Usually in young adult novels, there's so much bickering. That wasn't the case in One of Us Is Lying. There are a few plot twists. I did figure out who the murderer was very early in the book. I felt like it was kind of obvious. However, there was one major plot twist I didn't predict. I feel like this book does tie up all loose ends.
The world building was done very well. I thought the author, Karen M. McManus, did a great job in writing about a high school setting as well as a criminal setting. Everything felt very real. I felt like I was one of the teens being accused of murder. Everything felt personal to me which is definitely a good thing. I've never been interrogated by the police, but McManus made me feel like I was in the interrogation room each time was of the teens was questioned. I can't fault the world building one bit. It is solid.
I loved the characters in One of Us is Lying. I also loved how diverse a lot of the characters were. I think my favorite character, overall, was Cooper. Maybe it's because we're both southern, but I just loved him. He seemed so caring and sweet. I also enjoyed the other characters of Nate, Bronwyn, and Addy as well. It was nice to see the homecoming princess as not just a one dimensional person. All of the characters were thoroughly fleshed out. Character development was spot on.
Trigger warnings include death, drugs, some violence, and swearing.
All in all, One of Us Is Lying was such a fantastic read. I enjoyed it more than I thought I was going to. It's got a great cast of characters, an interesting plot, and the world building is fantastic. I would definitely recommend One of Us Is Lying by Karen M. McManus to everyone aged 14+.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Joker follows Arthur Fleck’s descent from a somewhat mentally troubled comedian to becoming the Joker, arch Batman villain and force for chaos.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Ben Howkins (7 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Feb 17, 2019
Muddled plot (1 more)
Forced ending
Alita's more mortal than angel
The basic plot of the film is: about 300 years after a large war called “The Fall” a cyborg repairer/ doctor called Dr Dyson Ido finds the dismembered but still functioning body of a young girl in the scrapheap of rubbish dumped from Zalem, the last remaining sky city from before “The Fall”. After Ido is able to connect the remains to a cyborg body he had made for his late daughter, the girl awakes with no memories of who or what she is. To help her, Ido decides to look after, treating her as if she had a new start in life, even giving her a new name, Alita, after his late daughter whose body she had. Unfortunately though whilst creating her new life in Iron City, Alita starts to remember things about her past and who she truly is, learns that some of the people who she thinks she knows aren’t quite what they seem and most worryingly starting to attract the attention of some bad people.
If I am going, to be honest, both the movie and performances are on a hit and miss scale. Rosa Salazar who is the face and performance of the leading lady is quite good. She portrays Alita’s emotional and mental journey/ life cycle throughout the film to a high standard, evolving from the naive young girl at the very start when she knows and is nothing, through her lovesick and difficult middle period (teenage years if you will) and finishing with starts to truly knowing who she is and what she must do. Christoph Waltz is like always very good as Dr Dyson Ido. The different sides he showed of his character, sometimes switching and showing multiple in a single scene, is quite impressive. These include lighter ones like the loving father figure towards Alita and the doctor who is willing to help everyone sometimes for nothing in return, to his darker side like his secret “night job” and his hatred and disdain towards Zalem and their murderous entertainment “Motorball”. I will also give an honourable mention to Ed Skrein who plays bounty hunter Zapan. Out of the multiple known names who have middle to lower importance parts he was definitely the best as his (what I would say) known style of emotionless bad guy fits perfectly to his character.
But as I said there were definite misses to these hits, biggest one being Keean Johnson who plays Alita’s first friend turned love interest Hugo. The problem with Hugo isn’t all Johnson’s performance, though that is quite flat and unengaging, but that Hugo was unfortunately terribly written and just doesn’t really have anything about him. Another miss, performance wise, was the fact that there were a few big well-known actors and actresses who they didn’t use to their potential, again due to poor writing. An example is Mahershala Ali who plays Vector, an entrepreneur linked into “Motorball”. Though he is what I would regard as a “B Level Character”, nothing is done with him to use or explore his story, which I believe could have helped a bit with the story.
Like the performances, the film itself is also hit and miss, unfortunately with the later are bigger in weight than the former. Start with the good, Visually this movie is as stunning as it is billed. Though you can tell it’s mostly CGI, Alita still looks absolutely beautiful and some of the other cyborg/ robotic characters look just as good, particularly Zapan. Also, the performances I said were good were very good.
For all the lovely visuals and good performances, the biggest problem for the movie is the script. It is incredibly muddled up, jumping from one thing to the next at such a quick rate that it is hard to follow and even sometimes see the link between scenes. The movie also, in my opinion, finishes without a true ending. It is clear it was set up for a sequel but I feel there could have been at least another 10-20 minutes more to tie it up/ tide us properly over.
Overall I was really disappointed with Alita. With the team involved, I believed it had potential to be this decade “Avatar” but instead just ended up being another mediocre futuristic action drama.
If I am going, to be honest, both the movie and performances are on a hit and miss scale. Rosa Salazar who is the face and performance of the leading lady is quite good. She portrays Alita’s emotional and mental journey/ life cycle throughout the film to a high standard, evolving from the naive young girl at the very start when she knows and is nothing, through her lovesick and difficult middle period (teenage years if you will) and finishing with starts to truly knowing who she is and what she must do. Christoph Waltz is like always very good as Dr Dyson Ido. The different sides he showed of his character, sometimes switching and showing multiple in a single scene, is quite impressive. These include lighter ones like the loving father figure towards Alita and the doctor who is willing to help everyone sometimes for nothing in return, to his darker side like his secret “night job” and his hatred and disdain towards Zalem and their murderous entertainment “Motorball”. I will also give an honourable mention to Ed Skrein who plays bounty hunter Zapan. Out of the multiple known names who have middle to lower importance parts he was definitely the best as his (what I would say) known style of emotionless bad guy fits perfectly to his character.
But as I said there were definite misses to these hits, biggest one being Keean Johnson who plays Alita’s first friend turned love interest Hugo. The problem with Hugo isn’t all Johnson’s performance, though that is quite flat and unengaging, but that Hugo was unfortunately terribly written and just doesn’t really have anything about him. Another miss, performance wise, was the fact that there were a few big well-known actors and actresses who they didn’t use to their potential, again due to poor writing. An example is Mahershala Ali who plays Vector, an entrepreneur linked into “Motorball”. Though he is what I would regard as a “B Level Character”, nothing is done with him to use or explore his story, which I believe could have helped a bit with the story.
Like the performances, the film itself is also hit and miss, unfortunately with the later are bigger in weight than the former. Start with the good, Visually this movie is as stunning as it is billed. Though you can tell it’s mostly CGI, Alita still looks absolutely beautiful and some of the other cyborg/ robotic characters look just as good, particularly Zapan. Also, the performances I said were good were very good.
For all the lovely visuals and good performances, the biggest problem for the movie is the script. It is incredibly muddled up, jumping from one thing to the next at such a quick rate that it is hard to follow and even sometimes see the link between scenes. The movie also, in my opinion, finishes without a true ending. It is clear it was set up for a sequel but I feel there could have been at least another 10-20 minutes more to tie it up/ tide us properly over.
Overall I was really disappointed with Alita. With the team involved, I believed it had potential to be this decade “Avatar” but instead just ended up being another mediocre futuristic action drama.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Life after Gravity.
Mankind is on the verge of a major milestone. The “Pilgrim” probe is returning from Mars containing soil samples that might spell the discovery of the first palpable evidence of life beyond earth. Proving that earth scientists are not completely incompetent, the probe is being returned not to earth but to a lab on the International Space Station where strict quarantine can be maintained. This key mission requirement is the responsibility of Miranda North (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation”). Supporting her is an international crew including fellow doctor David Harris (Jake Gyllenhaal, “Source Code”), professional astronaut Rory Adams (Ryan Reynolds, “Deadpool”) and Hugh Derry (Ariyon Bakare), the lead scientist studying the samples. Needless to say, the soil samples yield more promise than Derry could have ever hoped for (or North could have feared). A crisis of growth and death ensues in a manner that fans of “Alien” will be suitably familiar with. Can the crew survive against all the odds?
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
I’m a big fan of Tom Cruise. He is a real old-fashioned film star, generous with his fans on the red carpet and with real star power at the box office. And I can happily sit down in front of just about any one of his DVD’s time and time again and still enjoy it. Unlike many critics, I even enjoyed his last outing as Jack Reacher.
Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this but, his latest outing – “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” – is a bit dull.
Lee Child’s Reacher has many years before turned his back on his military past and wanders the country as a drifter righting wrongs outside of the law. In this film, his military past again makes a major (“No, ex-Major”) intrusion into his life. Potential love interest Major Susan Turner (Colbie Smulders, from the “Avengers” world) is arrested on trumped-up espionage charges and Cruise sets out to clear her name. Along the way he accidentally (and rather too conveniently for the plot) discovers that a paternity suit has been filed against him and Reacher confronts the rebellious and light-fingered teenager Samantha (Danika Yarosh, aged 18 playing 15).
Unfortunately the big-cheeses involved in the international arms skulduggery are determined to tie up each and every loose end in their intrigue, and that includes Reacher, Turner and young Samantha by association. Needless to say, the villains – led by a one-man killing machine (Patrick Heusinger) – haven’t counted on Reacher’s ‘particular set of skills’.
My problem with the film (after an entertaining opening) is that the screenplay lumbers from standard thriller set-piece to standard thriller set-piece in a highly predictable way. It’s as if the scripts from 20 different films have been stuck in a blender. Shadowy arms dealing shenanigans: check; Cute teenager in peril: check; Gun fight on a dockside: check; Rooftop chase: check.
Are all the individual set-pieces decently done? Yes, sure. But the combination of these bits of action tapas really don’t add up to a satisfying meal. The story arc is almost non-existent as there is no suspense in the ‘investigation’: the plot is all pretty well laid out for you.
Where there is some fun to be had is in the play-off between the born-leader Reacher and the born-leader Turner, both trying to be top-dog in the decision making. The romantic connection between the leads seems almost plausible despite their 20 (TWENTY!) year age difference: this is more down to how incredibly good Cruise still looks at age 54 (damn him!). Turner makes a good female role-model right up to the point where there is a confrontation in a hotel room and Turner backs down: despite Cruise being the “hero” it would have been nice for female equality for this face-off to have gone the other way.
The director is Edward Zwick, who helmed Cruise’s more interesting movie “The Last Samurai”.
The trailer started off well and then progressed into general mediocrity. Unfortunately – for me at least – the film lived up to the trailer. Watchable, but not memorable.
Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this but, his latest outing – “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” – is a bit dull.
Lee Child’s Reacher has many years before turned his back on his military past and wanders the country as a drifter righting wrongs outside of the law. In this film, his military past again makes a major (“No, ex-Major”) intrusion into his life. Potential love interest Major Susan Turner (Colbie Smulders, from the “Avengers” world) is arrested on trumped-up espionage charges and Cruise sets out to clear her name. Along the way he accidentally (and rather too conveniently for the plot) discovers that a paternity suit has been filed against him and Reacher confronts the rebellious and light-fingered teenager Samantha (Danika Yarosh, aged 18 playing 15).
Unfortunately the big-cheeses involved in the international arms skulduggery are determined to tie up each and every loose end in their intrigue, and that includes Reacher, Turner and young Samantha by association. Needless to say, the villains – led by a one-man killing machine (Patrick Heusinger) – haven’t counted on Reacher’s ‘particular set of skills’.
My problem with the film (after an entertaining opening) is that the screenplay lumbers from standard thriller set-piece to standard thriller set-piece in a highly predictable way. It’s as if the scripts from 20 different films have been stuck in a blender. Shadowy arms dealing shenanigans: check; Cute teenager in peril: check; Gun fight on a dockside: check; Rooftop chase: check.
Are all the individual set-pieces decently done? Yes, sure. But the combination of these bits of action tapas really don’t add up to a satisfying meal. The story arc is almost non-existent as there is no suspense in the ‘investigation’: the plot is all pretty well laid out for you.
Where there is some fun to be had is in the play-off between the born-leader Reacher and the born-leader Turner, both trying to be top-dog in the decision making. The romantic connection between the leads seems almost plausible despite their 20 (TWENTY!) year age difference: this is more down to how incredibly good Cruise still looks at age 54 (damn him!). Turner makes a good female role-model right up to the point where there is a confrontation in a hotel room and Turner backs down: despite Cruise being the “hero” it would have been nice for female equality for this face-off to have gone the other way.
The director is Edward Zwick, who helmed Cruise’s more interesting movie “The Last Samurai”.
The trailer started off well and then progressed into general mediocrity. Unfortunately – for me at least – the film lived up to the trailer. Watchable, but not memorable.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Up (2009) in Movies
May 30, 2019
A Movie That Never Stumbles Towards its End Goal.
After the death of his wife (tear), Carl Fredericksen (Edward Asner) decides to tie a bunch of balloons to his house and fly off on a great adventure. He gets more than what he bargained for when he realizes he won’t be alone on this adventure.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Up has more power in its first twelve minutes than most films do in their entire runtime. I can watch this a dozen times and it still hits me the same exact way. It tells the story of the relationship between Carl and Ellie in all of its highs and lows. You will be hard-pressed to find a better beginning than this throughout the history of movies. There’s something so real and heartfelt about it that sucks you in and sets up Carl’s character perfectly.
Characters: 10
Life has turned Carl into a cranky old man whose everything hurts all the time. He takes no guff and, at the end of the day, just wants to be left alone. He is one of numerous rich characters than shine throughout the movie, both animal and human alike. Young boyscout Russell (Jordan Nagai) puts a smile on my face with every single scene that he’s in. He’s always willing to go above and beyond to help. So inquisitive, yet so clueless. Throw in Doug the talking dog and the awesome Snipe and you have the perfect mix of original characters you want to root for.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
I was blown away by the amazing visuals Up has to offer. So many colors shoot out at you as you see the balloons hovering over Carl’s house for the first time. The house floats into Paradise Falls after surviving a wicked storm and you’re treated to just that—Paradise. Canyons and a tropical rainforest full of lush greenery. The detail that went into this animation is outstanding.
Conflict: 10
There is plenty of action to be had on this great adventure. What starts as an innocent trip is quickly disrupted by a storm that turns everything upside down. The adventure soars to new heights after that, never really slowing down much for you to check on the time. Beginnings are important, but middles even moreso, and the events that unfold during the meat of the film are fun and harrowing at the same time.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Up is like riding a smooth wave. Some moments are more intense than others, but you’re always headed towards an end goal of sorts. Bad pacing is filled with road blocks and unnecessary scenes, but Up manages to maximize its full runtime by making every single moment count.
Plot: 10
A beautiful story that couldn’t have been told in a more beautiful way. It’s fun and unique, definitely something you haven’t seen before. I honestly can’t think of a better way it could have been done.
Resolution: 10
I’m one of the few weirdos who was touched just as much by the ending as I was the beginning. It makes you happy to see what befalls the characters, yet a bit sad as you realize the movie is reaching its conclusion. At the end, Up doesn’t linger. It does what it needs to do and concludes perfectly.
Overall: 100
There is a reason Up is one of three animated movies nominated for Best Picture. It is one of the greatest movies ever made and tops my all-time list as of 5/30/2019. Noticed I didn’t say “one of the greatest animated movies”, but one of the greatest MOVIES. It’s an all-timer driven by great character relationships and powerful, emotion-filled scenes.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Up has more power in its first twelve minutes than most films do in their entire runtime. I can watch this a dozen times and it still hits me the same exact way. It tells the story of the relationship between Carl and Ellie in all of its highs and lows. You will be hard-pressed to find a better beginning than this throughout the history of movies. There’s something so real and heartfelt about it that sucks you in and sets up Carl’s character perfectly.
Characters: 10
Life has turned Carl into a cranky old man whose everything hurts all the time. He takes no guff and, at the end of the day, just wants to be left alone. He is one of numerous rich characters than shine throughout the movie, both animal and human alike. Young boyscout Russell (Jordan Nagai) puts a smile on my face with every single scene that he’s in. He’s always willing to go above and beyond to help. So inquisitive, yet so clueless. Throw in Doug the talking dog and the awesome Snipe and you have the perfect mix of original characters you want to root for.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
I was blown away by the amazing visuals Up has to offer. So many colors shoot out at you as you see the balloons hovering over Carl’s house for the first time. The house floats into Paradise Falls after surviving a wicked storm and you’re treated to just that—Paradise. Canyons and a tropical rainforest full of lush greenery. The detail that went into this animation is outstanding.
Conflict: 10
There is plenty of action to be had on this great adventure. What starts as an innocent trip is quickly disrupted by a storm that turns everything upside down. The adventure soars to new heights after that, never really slowing down much for you to check on the time. Beginnings are important, but middles even moreso, and the events that unfold during the meat of the film are fun and harrowing at the same time.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Up is like riding a smooth wave. Some moments are more intense than others, but you’re always headed towards an end goal of sorts. Bad pacing is filled with road blocks and unnecessary scenes, but Up manages to maximize its full runtime by making every single moment count.
Plot: 10
A beautiful story that couldn’t have been told in a more beautiful way. It’s fun and unique, definitely something you haven’t seen before. I honestly can’t think of a better way it could have been done.
Resolution: 10
I’m one of the few weirdos who was touched just as much by the ending as I was the beginning. It makes you happy to see what befalls the characters, yet a bit sad as you realize the movie is reaching its conclusion. At the end, Up doesn’t linger. It does what it needs to do and concludes perfectly.
Overall: 100
There is a reason Up is one of three animated movies nominated for Best Picture. It is one of the greatest movies ever made and tops my all-time list as of 5/30/2019. Noticed I didn’t say “one of the greatest animated movies”, but one of the greatest MOVIES. It’s an all-timer driven by great character relationships and powerful, emotion-filled scenes.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 17, 2018
Entertaining film - but the book was better
I loved the book.
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)