Search
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
See no evil
The Invisible Man is not a movie about an Invisible Man and certainly not the horror movie its being promoted as, instead its a tight little scifi esq thriller about domestic violence and the lingering effects domestic abuse can bring. Directed by the same director of the absolutley fantastic film Upgrade The invisible man could almost be a companion piece in a sense or even take place in the same world as Upgrade. From the titles its clear tension and impending dread is absolutely nailed here and as we look in on our lead character we can see just how extreme and unsafe her situation/relationship has become. Shes a victim trapped by an abusive and obsessive partner and before her life becomes any more at risk she escapes, but what she then leaves herself open to is a life of paraninoia, mental scaring, trauma, torture and living life in constant fear that her partner will come for her again. Shes never free from him and the way the film uses the invisible man as a metaphor is extremely clever as it shows her trying to live a normal life while clearly completely damaged by the hold one man had on her and by the echoes of the abuse she recived from him (in a sense its like hes still there constantly breathing over her shoulder). Everything is done well and the film really benefits from its slow pace as it helps us as a viewer really get invested into this character and shows just how damaged she has become from past events. Its score is phenomenal too helping ramp up the fear and tension with its intense futuristic droning and screeching. When violence hits its impactful, brutal and shocking as the long build up for it makes it seem like it comes out of nowhere preserving shock value perfectly. Fight scenes are filmed just like the ones from Upgrade full of energy/style and are just as unique/cool while making subtle nods to that film too. Acting is really good especially Elisabeth Moss watching her evolve as a character and in sense use the traits of the person she hates to become stronger is riviting and Eldis Hodge gives a great support role too. Its to bad at times the acting its hurt unnecessarily however by very exposition heavy dialog. If youve seen the trailer for this movie the invisible man reveal will have been spoilt for you as will too a crucial story point however overall as a film what Leigh Whannell has achieved here with this film is certainly very very brave and vastly diffrent from the way these films usually play out. Hes given a very clever and unique take on a character that has already been done to death in films and while it was predictable to a certain extent I applaud him for not going for the lazy done to death almost supernatural approach to this character. The Invisible man is a breath of fresh air amongst crap like fantasy island/the boy 2 and while by no means perfect its brave and realistic portrayals of the after effects of domestic abuse are shocking, well represented and tuff to watch at times. Invisible man is a pleasant surprise but will no doubt be far to slow and intelligent for those just looking for mere jump scares. That being said if this director keeps up this great track record I wouldnt be surprised if bigger film companies start seeking him out very soon.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Yesterday (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Rocketman recently did a great job of reminding us just how good Elton John songs are, making us want to dust off our vinyl/plastic/streaming service collection and reacquaint ourselves with his back catalogue all over again. Last year the Bohemian Rhapsody movie did a similar thing for the music of Queen and now it's the turn of The Beatles, with Yesterday. Written by Richard Curtis, and directed by Danny Boyle, Yesterday doesn't go down the musical/biopic route, instead taking classic Beatles songs and weaving them into a high concept romantic comedy.
Yesterday follows struggling musician Jack (Himesh Patel) and his long-term best friend/manager Ellie (Lily James). Gigging in pubs is getting him nowhere and he's resigned himself to the fact that he might have to give it all up and return to teaching. He lands a spot on the Suffolk stage at Latitude festival, expecting it to be his big break, but only his friends and a handful of bored kids show up to watch him play.
But then, while riding home on his bike that night, something mysterious happens. An unexplained 12 second power cut hits the entire globe and in the resulting chaos, Jack is struck by a bus and flung from his bike. When he awakes in hospital, bruised and missing a couple of front teeth, he plays a Beatles song to Ellie and his friends, who all think it's amazing, claiming to have never heard of the song before, or even The Beatles. After a bit of Googling, it becomes clear that The Beatles never actually existed, and only Jack is able to remember them. There are a few other things which crop up as we go along, that also turn out never to have existed, in what is a bit of a running gag throughout the movie.
Jack immediately realises his chance of success at last and sets about trying to remember as many of The Beatles songs and music as he can. His friends love the new songs, and there's a hilarious scene where he tries to introduce his parents to a Beatles song too (The Kumars, Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal on top form here), but it's still not really working out for him at the pub gigs and weddings where he performs them. It's only when he gets the chance to professionally lay down his tracks, and starts handing out free CDs to customers at the store he works at, that things really take off for Jack, drawing the attentions of none other than Mr Ed Sheeran. Ed has fun sending himself up, and actually features quite heavily in the movie, particularly in these early stages - turning up at Jack's house, asking him to come and support him on tour, arranging a 10 minute songwriting challenge between him and Jack. I'm not really a fan of Ed Sheeran but he actually turns out to be responsible for a lot of the movies humour as he eventually concedes that Jack is a better songwriter than him.
As Jack starts to hit the big time, traveling to LA and being managed by Ed's manager Debra (Kate McKinnon), we hit a bit of a mid-movie slump. Luckily though, Himesh Patel portrays Jack with such a relatable and likeable charm - his bewilderment and frustrations at the ridiculousness of the music industry, not to mention the building pressures of living the lie that his success has come from using someone else's work, guides us nicely through the slower moments of the movie. The romance part of the story continues to play out too, with Jack and Ellie both clearly loving each other for 20 years now, but with neither of them committing to taking it further. Lily James is once again wonderful, despite being very underused in this role, and it's the love story element of the movie which isn't quite as strong as the rest of it.
The movie does manage to pull things together nicely for the final act, resolving the unease and tension that dominates much of the movie. It could have done with a bit more rom and a bit more com, but is still an enjoyable movie and a perfect reminder of just how great The Beatles are.
Yesterday follows struggling musician Jack (Himesh Patel) and his long-term best friend/manager Ellie (Lily James). Gigging in pubs is getting him nowhere and he's resigned himself to the fact that he might have to give it all up and return to teaching. He lands a spot on the Suffolk stage at Latitude festival, expecting it to be his big break, but only his friends and a handful of bored kids show up to watch him play.
But then, while riding home on his bike that night, something mysterious happens. An unexplained 12 second power cut hits the entire globe and in the resulting chaos, Jack is struck by a bus and flung from his bike. When he awakes in hospital, bruised and missing a couple of front teeth, he plays a Beatles song to Ellie and his friends, who all think it's amazing, claiming to have never heard of the song before, or even The Beatles. After a bit of Googling, it becomes clear that The Beatles never actually existed, and only Jack is able to remember them. There are a few other things which crop up as we go along, that also turn out never to have existed, in what is a bit of a running gag throughout the movie.
Jack immediately realises his chance of success at last and sets about trying to remember as many of The Beatles songs and music as he can. His friends love the new songs, and there's a hilarious scene where he tries to introduce his parents to a Beatles song too (The Kumars, Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal on top form here), but it's still not really working out for him at the pub gigs and weddings where he performs them. It's only when he gets the chance to professionally lay down his tracks, and starts handing out free CDs to customers at the store he works at, that things really take off for Jack, drawing the attentions of none other than Mr Ed Sheeran. Ed has fun sending himself up, and actually features quite heavily in the movie, particularly in these early stages - turning up at Jack's house, asking him to come and support him on tour, arranging a 10 minute songwriting challenge between him and Jack. I'm not really a fan of Ed Sheeran but he actually turns out to be responsible for a lot of the movies humour as he eventually concedes that Jack is a better songwriter than him.
As Jack starts to hit the big time, traveling to LA and being managed by Ed's manager Debra (Kate McKinnon), we hit a bit of a mid-movie slump. Luckily though, Himesh Patel portrays Jack with such a relatable and likeable charm - his bewilderment and frustrations at the ridiculousness of the music industry, not to mention the building pressures of living the lie that his success has come from using someone else's work, guides us nicely through the slower moments of the movie. The romance part of the story continues to play out too, with Jack and Ellie both clearly loving each other for 20 years now, but with neither of them committing to taking it further. Lily James is once again wonderful, despite being very underused in this role, and it's the love story element of the movie which isn't quite as strong as the rest of it.
The movie does manage to pull things together nicely for the final act, resolving the unease and tension that dominates much of the movie. It could have done with a bit more rom and a bit more com, but is still an enjoyable movie and a perfect reminder of just how great The Beatles are.
Lee (2222 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 6, 2019 (Updated Sep 6, 2019)
Bloated, messy at times, not quite as good as chapter 1 :(
It's fair to say that IT Chapter 2 has been one of my most anticipated movies this year. The trailer, which I've probably watched just as many times now as I watched the Endgame trailer, gives me goosebumps every time, and I couldn't wait to rejoin the losers club for another battle with Pennywise the clown. I was lucky enough to secure tickets to the immersive IT experience in London last weekend, adding further fuel to my excitement, and I decided to book the double bill showing of both chapters at the cinema in order to fully enjoy the complete story. Watching chapter 1 up on the big screen again proved to be just as enjoyable for me as the first time I saw it. Sadly though, I feel that chapter 2 didn't quite measure up to chapter 1.
It's now been 27 years since the events of chapter 1. One night, at the Derry funfair, a prolonged and brutal homophobic attack takes place, seemingly serving no other purpose than to provide us with a lengthy setup for the return of Pennywise. Yes, the clown is back and looking for revenge. It falls to Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only member of the losers club still living in Derry, to call on the others, to tell them they need to come home and to fulfill the oath they all pledged as children - no matter where they are, if "It" ever comes back, they'll come back to finish it. They all take the call they never thought they'd get and immediately their lives feel the impact - Bill (James McAvoy) is now a famous writer and suddenly starts to regain his stutter, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) clearly hasn't managed to escape a life of abuse, Ben (Jay Ryan) has managed to shed a lot of weight, Richie (Bill Hader) throws up before going on stage to perform stand-up, Eddie (James Ransome) simply refuses to believe what he's hearing. And Stanley (Andy Bean), well he fully appreciates the horror that lies ahead of them all.
The adult versions of the losers club are all perfectly cast, and just as entertaining in adult form as they are as children. Any reviews you read for this movie will no doubt mention Bill Hader as adult Richie, and all praise for him is well deserved. Just as Finn Wolfhard stole the show as the young, wise cracking and potty mouthed Richie in chapter 1, so does Bill Hader here. But the entire adult cast is all simply spot on.
They all meet up at a Chinese restaurant in Derry, gradually recalling forgotten events from their childhood over a meal and falling back into old friendships once again. We get multiple flashbacks of them all as teenagers, new scenes that help to flesh out the story-line, and these continue throughout the entire movie. It's a real nostalgic joy to revisit these younger versions again, and to immediately see how each flashback moment ultimately affects them as adults. The threat of Pennywise constantly lingers though, and they know they have work to do.
They go their separate ways, remaining in Derry but taking time to reacquainte themselves with the town and their own personal history there. Mike has a theory on how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, but first they must face him individually - grow stronger and more confident so that they can hopefully overcome him together as a team.
Unfortunately though, Pennywise never really feels as much of a threat as he did in the first movie. The slow brooding, creepy scares that worked so effectively then are all but lost here. There certainly are still a handful of those in chapter 2, and those do work extremely well, but they're simply outnumbered by a constant barrage of jump scares and CGI monsters. I lost count of the number of times we got a random CGI creature rapidly approaching us and the over-reliance on CGI is noticeably jarring, even more so in the final act. The use of practical, psychological scares is sorely missed and the whole thing is nowhere near as scary as chapter 1.
The run-time clocks in at 2hr 50, compared to a tighter 2hr 15 for chapter 1, and it really notices. Admittedly, the Stephen King source material is pretty hefty anyway (so I hear), but at times this just felt bloated and messy in its interpretation, too much being thrown at you and not enough of it sticking. That CG heavy finale I mentioned is also way too long, and really drags. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the introduction of the adult losers and the interweaving of their lives with the flashbacks from 27 years earlier. There's talk of an extended cut being out there and potentially being released. Personally, I would prefer a much leaner, shorter cut.
It's now been 27 years since the events of chapter 1. One night, at the Derry funfair, a prolonged and brutal homophobic attack takes place, seemingly serving no other purpose than to provide us with a lengthy setup for the return of Pennywise. Yes, the clown is back and looking for revenge. It falls to Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), the only member of the losers club still living in Derry, to call on the others, to tell them they need to come home and to fulfill the oath they all pledged as children - no matter where they are, if "It" ever comes back, they'll come back to finish it. They all take the call they never thought they'd get and immediately their lives feel the impact - Bill (James McAvoy) is now a famous writer and suddenly starts to regain his stutter, Beverly (Jessica Chastain) clearly hasn't managed to escape a life of abuse, Ben (Jay Ryan) has managed to shed a lot of weight, Richie (Bill Hader) throws up before going on stage to perform stand-up, Eddie (James Ransome) simply refuses to believe what he's hearing. And Stanley (Andy Bean), well he fully appreciates the horror that lies ahead of them all.
The adult versions of the losers club are all perfectly cast, and just as entertaining in adult form as they are as children. Any reviews you read for this movie will no doubt mention Bill Hader as adult Richie, and all praise for him is well deserved. Just as Finn Wolfhard stole the show as the young, wise cracking and potty mouthed Richie in chapter 1, so does Bill Hader here. But the entire adult cast is all simply spot on.
They all meet up at a Chinese restaurant in Derry, gradually recalling forgotten events from their childhood over a meal and falling back into old friendships once again. We get multiple flashbacks of them all as teenagers, new scenes that help to flesh out the story-line, and these continue throughout the entire movie. It's a real nostalgic joy to revisit these younger versions again, and to immediately see how each flashback moment ultimately affects them as adults. The threat of Pennywise constantly lingers though, and they know they have work to do.
They go their separate ways, remaining in Derry but taking time to reacquainte themselves with the town and their own personal history there. Mike has a theory on how to defeat Pennywise once and for all, but first they must face him individually - grow stronger and more confident so that they can hopefully overcome him together as a team.
Unfortunately though, Pennywise never really feels as much of a threat as he did in the first movie. The slow brooding, creepy scares that worked so effectively then are all but lost here. There certainly are still a handful of those in chapter 2, and those do work extremely well, but they're simply outnumbered by a constant barrage of jump scares and CGI monsters. I lost count of the number of times we got a random CGI creature rapidly approaching us and the over-reliance on CGI is noticeably jarring, even more so in the final act. The use of practical, psychological scares is sorely missed and the whole thing is nowhere near as scary as chapter 1.
The run-time clocks in at 2hr 50, compared to a tighter 2hr 15 for chapter 1, and it really notices. Admittedly, the Stephen King source material is pretty hefty anyway (so I hear), but at times this just felt bloated and messy in its interpretation, too much being thrown at you and not enough of it sticking. That CG heavy finale I mentioned is also way too long, and really drags. It's a shame because I really enjoyed the introduction of the adult losers and the interweaving of their lives with the flashbacks from 27 years earlier. There's talk of an extended cut being out there and potentially being released. Personally, I would prefer a much leaner, shorter cut.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Absolutely Bonkers
2013’s Pacific Rim was one of the most underrated films of the year. Lumbered in the same category as the Transformers series for its seemingly simple premise about robots fighting giant monsters, it had a lukewarm performance at the box office.
For those movie buffs reading this, you’ll of course know the film was directed by the Oscar-winning Guillermo Del Toro and with that came his signature quirks and visual sense of style. Oh yes, Pacific Rim was much more than a mish-mash of action.
A sequel looked very unlikely given the mediocre reception it received and then Del Toro passed on the idea altogether, instead focusing on the film that earned him a Best Director award at this year’s Oscars, The Shape of Water. I’m not going to pretend that was the wrong decision because it clearly wasn’t.
Nevertheless, Universal and Legendary pictures, with help from Del Toro handpicked little-known director Steven S. DeKnight to helm this second instalment in the new series, Pacific Rim: Uprising. It’s taken five years and $150million to get here. Was it worth it?
Jake Pentecost (John Boyega) is a once-promising Jaeger pilot whose legendary father gave his life to secure humanity’s victory against the monstrous Kaiju. Jake has since abandoned his training only to become caught up in a criminal underworld. But when an even more unstoppable threat is unleashed to tear through cities and bring the world to its knees, Jake is given one last chance by his estranged sister, Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), to live up to his father’s legacy.
Coming hot off the heels of his performance in Star Wars: The Last Jedi, John Boyega channels his franchise father, Idris Elba, reasonably well and his estranged relationship with the former jaeger pilot is discussed, albeit briefly. Boyega is still discovering himself as a leading star and it’s films like Pacific Rim and Star Wars that he continues to impress in.
Here, he plays a cocky, arrogant young man who has lost his way until he’s given a second chance by returnee Mako (Kikuchi). It’s nice to see her and both Charlie Day’s Newton Geiszler and Burn Gorman’s Hermann Gottlieb return to this new series.
The inclusion of the film’s previous stars doesn’t feel unnecessarily shoe-horned in and this is a welcome change to many other films that try the same trick. Gorman and Day in particular provide some decent comic relief throughout. The weakest link over the course of the film is Scott Eastwood’s Ranger Lambert. His forced backstory with Boyega’s Pentecost isn’t particularly engaging.
The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo
Setting the action a decade after the events of the first film is a good way to freshen things up and Uprising feels all the better for it. The world is continuing to recover from the previous war and this change in atmosphere lends a new dynamic to the film. It certainly looks and sounds a lot like its predecessor, but Uprising is a very different beast, both in storytelling and the way it presents that story.
Where Pacific Rimwas a paint-by-numbers adventure transformed by Del Toro’s stunning visual acuity, Uprising is a well-plotted movie that lacks its previous director’s soft touch. Director Steven S. DeKnight rightly carves his own path with the visuals but sometimes this is at the cost of the charm that made the original such an unexpected delight. The plot is actually much better than that of its predecessor with numerous twists and turns that create a fun atmosphere for the audience, but with four writers working on it, you’d expect nothing less.
There are some Del-Toro-isms still present however and these remind us that this is very much more than a Michael Bay Transformers film. The special effects are excellent and with De Knight’s decision to film as much as possible during the day (a stark contrast to Del Toro) there really is nowhere to hide. The jaegers and Kaiju are all as detailed as you would expect from a movie costing $150million.
At 111 minutes, Pacific Rim: Uprising zips along briskly and rarely leaves you wanting. The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo. It may be a cynical marketing ploy to set portions of the film in Japan and China in order to appease international audiences, but it does lend itself to some lovely scenery.
Overall, Pacific Rim: Uprising is a film that manages to build upon its predecessor’s strong foundations, yet still manages to feel very much part of its universe. Sequels, especially to films that don’t perform well are risky business as movie studios try to save as much cash as possible, but thankfully Uprising is a fully-realised and confidently filmed second instalment. It’s loud, brash and completely unashamed of what it tries to be, but sometimes that’s all you want from a visit to the cinema. Call it Classy Transformers and you won’t be far from spot on.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/24/pacific-rim-uprising-absolutely-bonkers/
For those movie buffs reading this, you’ll of course know the film was directed by the Oscar-winning Guillermo Del Toro and with that came his signature quirks and visual sense of style. Oh yes, Pacific Rim was much more than a mish-mash of action.
A sequel looked very unlikely given the mediocre reception it received and then Del Toro passed on the idea altogether, instead focusing on the film that earned him a Best Director award at this year’s Oscars, The Shape of Water. I’m not going to pretend that was the wrong decision because it clearly wasn’t.
Nevertheless, Universal and Legendary pictures, with help from Del Toro handpicked little-known director Steven S. DeKnight to helm this second instalment in the new series, Pacific Rim: Uprising. It’s taken five years and $150million to get here. Was it worth it?
Jake Pentecost (John Boyega) is a once-promising Jaeger pilot whose legendary father gave his life to secure humanity’s victory against the monstrous Kaiju. Jake has since abandoned his training only to become caught up in a criminal underworld. But when an even more unstoppable threat is unleashed to tear through cities and bring the world to its knees, Jake is given one last chance by his estranged sister, Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), to live up to his father’s legacy.
Coming hot off the heels of his performance in Star Wars: The Last Jedi, John Boyega channels his franchise father, Idris Elba, reasonably well and his estranged relationship with the former jaeger pilot is discussed, albeit briefly. Boyega is still discovering himself as a leading star and it’s films like Pacific Rim and Star Wars that he continues to impress in.
Here, he plays a cocky, arrogant young man who has lost his way until he’s given a second chance by returnee Mako (Kikuchi). It’s nice to see her and both Charlie Day’s Newton Geiszler and Burn Gorman’s Hermann Gottlieb return to this new series.
The inclusion of the film’s previous stars doesn’t feel unnecessarily shoe-horned in and this is a welcome change to many other films that try the same trick. Gorman and Day in particular provide some decent comic relief throughout. The weakest link over the course of the film is Scott Eastwood’s Ranger Lambert. His forced backstory with Boyega’s Pentecost isn’t particularly engaging.
The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo
Setting the action a decade after the events of the first film is a good way to freshen things up and Uprising feels all the better for it. The world is continuing to recover from the previous war and this change in atmosphere lends a new dynamic to the film. It certainly looks and sounds a lot like its predecessor, but Uprising is a very different beast, both in storytelling and the way it presents that story.
Where Pacific Rimwas a paint-by-numbers adventure transformed by Del Toro’s stunning visual acuity, Uprising is a well-plotted movie that lacks its previous director’s soft touch. Director Steven S. DeKnight rightly carves his own path with the visuals but sometimes this is at the cost of the charm that made the original such an unexpected delight. The plot is actually much better than that of its predecessor with numerous twists and turns that create a fun atmosphere for the audience, but with four writers working on it, you’d expect nothing less.
There are some Del-Toro-isms still present however and these remind us that this is very much more than a Michael Bay Transformers film. The special effects are excellent and with De Knight’s decision to film as much as possible during the day (a stark contrast to Del Toro) there really is nowhere to hide. The jaegers and Kaiju are all as detailed as you would expect from a movie costing $150million.
At 111 minutes, Pacific Rim: Uprising zips along briskly and rarely leaves you wanting. The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo. It may be a cynical marketing ploy to set portions of the film in Japan and China in order to appease international audiences, but it does lend itself to some lovely scenery.
Overall, Pacific Rim: Uprising is a film that manages to build upon its predecessor’s strong foundations, yet still manages to feel very much part of its universe. Sequels, especially to films that don’t perform well are risky business as movie studios try to save as much cash as possible, but thankfully Uprising is a fully-realised and confidently filmed second instalment. It’s loud, brash and completely unashamed of what it tries to be, but sometimes that’s all you want from a visit to the cinema. Call it Classy Transformers and you won’t be far from spot on.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/24/pacific-rim-uprising-absolutely-bonkers/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pixels (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the off switch
When was the last time you went to the cinema to see something original? It’s probably a question a lot of film fans ask themselves and in the last few years, perhaps proved rather difficult to answer.
However, with 2015 being the year of the reboot and the sequel, it’s nice to see a film like Pixels showcasing something completely different. But is it worth a go?
Directed by Chris Columbus of Mrs. Doubtfire and Harry Potter fame, Pixels stars Adam Sandler, Josh Gad, Peter Dinklage and a woefully miscast Kevin James in a film that doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise, descending into painfully unfunny slapstick instead.
Sandler stars as Sam Brenner, a video game lover who, after a brief scene showing his history, is tasked with saving the world as aliens infiltrate Earth and begin to attack using some of our most-loved classic arcade games.
Alongside him for the ride are fellow video-game champs Josh Gad (Frozen), Peter Dinklage (X:Men – Days of Future Past) and Kevin James (Paul Blart: Mall Cop). The latter also happens to play the US President.
Unfortunately, none of the cast are particularly likeable with the usually on-point James playing one of the worst Presidential roles ever put to film. He is simply unbelievable as the leader of the United States and provides Pixels with some of its more cringe-worthy moments.
Once the film gets going, there are a few standout moments including a Pac-Man rampage through New York City but this has been so heavily marketed in the trailers that there is practically no suspense or joy in watching it unfold.
The finale is also very good, with a Donkey Kong showdown rendered in some stunning CGI and ridiculously clever set building and it’s great fun seeing so many classic arcade games being brought to life on the big screen.
Pac-Man, Q*Bert , Centipede and Donkey Kong are just a few to appear and look glorious with their 21st Century upgrades. Q*Bert in particular is a little cutie and is a major character throughout the last third of the film.
It’s unfortunate then that Chris Columbus’ usually reliable direction takes such a knock here. There’s none of the clever generation-bending humour of Mrs. Doubtfire or the laugh-out-loud slapstick of Home Alone, and the visual style he brought to Harry Potter is nowhere to be seen. In the end, Pixels just comes across as a brilliant concept that seems wasted.
Perhaps this can be blamed somewhat on poor casting choices. Adam Sandler hasn’t been hot property for a while after numerous box-office bombs and Peter Dinklage is still establishing himself as a major movie star. With Kevin James also proving a disappointment, it’s only Josh Gad who comes out on top – just.
Ultimately, Pixels is fun while it lasts and has some absolutely brilliant set pieces but once the credits roll, it’s apparent that it won’t be memorable like the wonderful arcade games it parodies.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/16/wheres-the-start-button-pixels-review/
However, with 2015 being the year of the reboot and the sequel, it’s nice to see a film like Pixels showcasing something completely different. But is it worth a go?
Directed by Chris Columbus of Mrs. Doubtfire and Harry Potter fame, Pixels stars Adam Sandler, Josh Gad, Peter Dinklage and a woefully miscast Kevin James in a film that doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise, descending into painfully unfunny slapstick instead.
Sandler stars as Sam Brenner, a video game lover who, after a brief scene showing his history, is tasked with saving the world as aliens infiltrate Earth and begin to attack using some of our most-loved classic arcade games.
Alongside him for the ride are fellow video-game champs Josh Gad (Frozen), Peter Dinklage (X:Men – Days of Future Past) and Kevin James (Paul Blart: Mall Cop). The latter also happens to play the US President.
Unfortunately, none of the cast are particularly likeable with the usually on-point James playing one of the worst Presidential roles ever put to film. He is simply unbelievable as the leader of the United States and provides Pixels with some of its more cringe-worthy moments.
Once the film gets going, there are a few standout moments including a Pac-Man rampage through New York City but this has been so heavily marketed in the trailers that there is practically no suspense or joy in watching it unfold.
The finale is also very good, with a Donkey Kong showdown rendered in some stunning CGI and ridiculously clever set building and it’s great fun seeing so many classic arcade games being brought to life on the big screen.
Pac-Man, Q*Bert , Centipede and Donkey Kong are just a few to appear and look glorious with their 21st Century upgrades. Q*Bert in particular is a little cutie and is a major character throughout the last third of the film.
It’s unfortunate then that Chris Columbus’ usually reliable direction takes such a knock here. There’s none of the clever generation-bending humour of Mrs. Doubtfire or the laugh-out-loud slapstick of Home Alone, and the visual style he brought to Harry Potter is nowhere to be seen. In the end, Pixels just comes across as a brilliant concept that seems wasted.
Perhaps this can be blamed somewhat on poor casting choices. Adam Sandler hasn’t been hot property for a while after numerous box-office bombs and Peter Dinklage is still establishing himself as a major movie star. With Kevin James also proving a disappointment, it’s only Josh Gad who comes out on top – just.
Ultimately, Pixels is fun while it lasts and has some absolutely brilliant set pieces but once the credits roll, it’s apparent that it won’t be memorable like the wonderful arcade games it parodies.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/16/wheres-the-start-button-pixels-review/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Who Built The Moon? by Noel Gallagher / Noel Gallagher's High Flying Birds in Music
Nov 28, 2017 (Updated Nov 28, 2017)
A new direction from Noel (1 more)
Some unexpectedly bold creative choices are made
A Breath Of Fresh Air
Who Built The Moon? was released on Friday 24/11/17 and has already proved to be the most divisive album that Noel has ever been a part of. I personally love it. I think if Noel had dropped another record in the now expected style of the first two HFB's records, we would be rolling our eyes. Instead he is trying something new, a bold step for a man of 50 who has been making music publicly for the last quarter of a century.
Working with notorious industry producer, David Holmes, this record possesses a whole new sound for Noel, his lyrics and vocals are obviously instantly recognisable, but the instrumentation and production on the record is like something we have never heard him do before. Now it's all well and good trying something new, but is it any good? Well, it is actually.
The record opens with a stomping instrumental called Fort Knox. A track reminiscent of George Harrison meets the Gorillaz, that you can't help but at least nod along to. This isn't the first time that Noel has opened a record with an instrumental, (2000's Standing On The Shoulders of Giants opened with Fuckin' In The Bushes,) but I think it may be his best instrumental to date.
Next up is the record's lead single; Holy Mountain. This track carries on the pace set by Fort Knox and contains elements of Slade and Bowie to boot. Much has already been said about the comparison to She Bangs, but it doesn't bother me, this is a fantastic song and I feel like it was a solid choice for the album's first single. Having Paul Weller playing the organ on it doesn't hurt much either.
Following this is one of my favourite songs on the record, Keep On Reaching. I actually heard Noel talking about this song in an interview before I heard the track itself and from what he was describing, I didn't think I was going to care for it. Well my preconceptions were whacked away once I got around to listening to the track. Absolutely brilliant song that feels uplifting and triumphant.
The next song is called It's A Beautiful World and I have to admit I found it to be a bit of a grower. I first heard the track played live on Jools Holland and didn't love it, then I heard the album track and liked it a bit more, then I listened to it again and wasn't feeling it as much. Now six or seven listens later, I love this song. There are a few odd choices made here and I can understand why people would initially be put off, but I think this track works perfectly, especially within the context of the rest of the album.
After this we hear She Taught Me How To Fly, which is probably my least favourite track on the record. Again though I have to admit that this has grown on me since I first heard it. Hearing it live for the first time on Jools Holland, combined with seeing that scissor player for the first time was a bit much for me and to be honest I really wasn't a fan of the track. While I still don't love the track, I do enjoy it within the context of the album and I much prefer it now to when I initially heard it.
Track six is called Be Careful What You Wish For and for me, it falls into the same category as She Taught Me How To Fly, in that it is good, but not great. I'd say that these two songs are definitely the 'filler' section of the album. On any other record, these songs would be highlights, but on a Noel Gallagher record, they only qualify as filler in my opinion. They do add to the album as a whole though and are absolutely necessary if you are looking to experience the album all the way through from start to finish, which is also definitely the best way to experience this album.
The record picks up again with Black & White Sunshine. A roaring rock n' roll stomper that definitely sounds the most like Oasis over anything else on the album. The song's upbeat tone and slightly melancholy lyrics match up with Noel's signature writing style and it works just as well here as it did in the Oasis days. It's nice to hear something that feels slightly more familiar in amongst all of the other more experimental stuff on this record.
After hearing Fort Knox, I was really excited to hear the other instrumental on this album, Wednesday - Part 1. Unfortunately it's nowhere near as good as Fort Knox and it's been split into two parts. It's still a decently enjoyable piece of music that helps the album plod along into it's final stretch, but if like me you were hoping this to be just as good as Fort Knox, you will be left disappointed.
Next up is what is perhaps my favourite track on the record; If Love Is The Law. This glorious banger of a tune adds so much to the record overall and sounds mega through a good set of headphones. Johnny Marr's unmistakable guitar playing works awesomely on this track, as does his harmonica work. The lyrics are top notch, Noel's voice sounds great and it is a brilliant tune from start to finish.
The last official track on the album is the title track, The Man Who Built the Moon. This song tells the story of a cowboy full of regrets, using all sorts of interesting metaphors it is definitely the most narrative track on the album. The tone of the song slightly reminds me of The Ballad Of The Mighty I, the closing track from Noel's last record. It is a great song and works fantastically as a way to end this record.
Lastly we have Wednesday - Part 2, which is simply a continuation of Wednesday - Part 1, not much else to say here really.
Finally, we have a bonus track called Dead In The Water. This was recorded live during a session Noel did on an Irish radio station while promoting his previous album. Noel apparently didn't even know he was being recorded at the time while he was singing, which I think makes this song even more special. Allegedly, David Holmes was reluctant to put this on the record, as he felt it was out of place with the rest of the songs on the record, but I am so glad that Noel convinced him otherwise. Noel's voice here, sounds pure and frankly astonishing and the lyrics are fantastic too. The tone sounds similar to Talk Tonight and it is definitely one of the album's best moments.
The one gripe I have about this album, is that while this is a fresh new direction for Noel, it's not a style that hasn't been done before by other bands and arguably been done better. The Gorillaz' records or any of the late Beatles albums serve as a good example of this. Then again, Noel is well known from 'borrowing,' song elements from other artists, so maybe this is as original as it gets for him and we should be grateful for that.
Regardless, as a long time Oasis, (and particularly Noel Gallagher,) fan, I am glad that Noel is doing something new. I am also glad that with both Gallagher brothers now producing music, we won't be getting two extremely similar sounding albums. This is exciting for Oasis fans and can maybe serve as a step forward for fans who are still stuck in the past, in finally getting over their favourite band breaking up - it only took 8 years.
Working with notorious industry producer, David Holmes, this record possesses a whole new sound for Noel, his lyrics and vocals are obviously instantly recognisable, but the instrumentation and production on the record is like something we have never heard him do before. Now it's all well and good trying something new, but is it any good? Well, it is actually.
The record opens with a stomping instrumental called Fort Knox. A track reminiscent of George Harrison meets the Gorillaz, that you can't help but at least nod along to. This isn't the first time that Noel has opened a record with an instrumental, (2000's Standing On The Shoulders of Giants opened with Fuckin' In The Bushes,) but I think it may be his best instrumental to date.
Next up is the record's lead single; Holy Mountain. This track carries on the pace set by Fort Knox and contains elements of Slade and Bowie to boot. Much has already been said about the comparison to She Bangs, but it doesn't bother me, this is a fantastic song and I feel like it was a solid choice for the album's first single. Having Paul Weller playing the organ on it doesn't hurt much either.
Following this is one of my favourite songs on the record, Keep On Reaching. I actually heard Noel talking about this song in an interview before I heard the track itself and from what he was describing, I didn't think I was going to care for it. Well my preconceptions were whacked away once I got around to listening to the track. Absolutely brilliant song that feels uplifting and triumphant.
The next song is called It's A Beautiful World and I have to admit I found it to be a bit of a grower. I first heard the track played live on Jools Holland and didn't love it, then I heard the album track and liked it a bit more, then I listened to it again and wasn't feeling it as much. Now six or seven listens later, I love this song. There are a few odd choices made here and I can understand why people would initially be put off, but I think this track works perfectly, especially within the context of the rest of the album.
After this we hear She Taught Me How To Fly, which is probably my least favourite track on the record. Again though I have to admit that this has grown on me since I first heard it. Hearing it live for the first time on Jools Holland, combined with seeing that scissor player for the first time was a bit much for me and to be honest I really wasn't a fan of the track. While I still don't love the track, I do enjoy it within the context of the album and I much prefer it now to when I initially heard it.
Track six is called Be Careful What You Wish For and for me, it falls into the same category as She Taught Me How To Fly, in that it is good, but not great. I'd say that these two songs are definitely the 'filler' section of the album. On any other record, these songs would be highlights, but on a Noel Gallagher record, they only qualify as filler in my opinion. They do add to the album as a whole though and are absolutely necessary if you are looking to experience the album all the way through from start to finish, which is also definitely the best way to experience this album.
The record picks up again with Black & White Sunshine. A roaring rock n' roll stomper that definitely sounds the most like Oasis over anything else on the album. The song's upbeat tone and slightly melancholy lyrics match up with Noel's signature writing style and it works just as well here as it did in the Oasis days. It's nice to hear something that feels slightly more familiar in amongst all of the other more experimental stuff on this record.
After hearing Fort Knox, I was really excited to hear the other instrumental on this album, Wednesday - Part 1. Unfortunately it's nowhere near as good as Fort Knox and it's been split into two parts. It's still a decently enjoyable piece of music that helps the album plod along into it's final stretch, but if like me you were hoping this to be just as good as Fort Knox, you will be left disappointed.
Next up is what is perhaps my favourite track on the record; If Love Is The Law. This glorious banger of a tune adds so much to the record overall and sounds mega through a good set of headphones. Johnny Marr's unmistakable guitar playing works awesomely on this track, as does his harmonica work. The lyrics are top notch, Noel's voice sounds great and it is a brilliant tune from start to finish.
The last official track on the album is the title track, The Man Who Built the Moon. This song tells the story of a cowboy full of regrets, using all sorts of interesting metaphors it is definitely the most narrative track on the album. The tone of the song slightly reminds me of The Ballad Of The Mighty I, the closing track from Noel's last record. It is a great song and works fantastically as a way to end this record.
Lastly we have Wednesday - Part 2, which is simply a continuation of Wednesday - Part 1, not much else to say here really.
Finally, we have a bonus track called Dead In The Water. This was recorded live during a session Noel did on an Irish radio station while promoting his previous album. Noel apparently didn't even know he was being recorded at the time while he was singing, which I think makes this song even more special. Allegedly, David Holmes was reluctant to put this on the record, as he felt it was out of place with the rest of the songs on the record, but I am so glad that Noel convinced him otherwise. Noel's voice here, sounds pure and frankly astonishing and the lyrics are fantastic too. The tone sounds similar to Talk Tonight and it is definitely one of the album's best moments.
The one gripe I have about this album, is that while this is a fresh new direction for Noel, it's not a style that hasn't been done before by other bands and arguably been done better. The Gorillaz' records or any of the late Beatles albums serve as a good example of this. Then again, Noel is well known from 'borrowing,' song elements from other artists, so maybe this is as original as it gets for him and we should be grateful for that.
Regardless, as a long time Oasis, (and particularly Noel Gallagher,) fan, I am glad that Noel is doing something new. I am also glad that with both Gallagher brothers now producing music, we won't be getting two extremely similar sounding albums. This is exciting for Oasis fans and can maybe serve as a step forward for fans who are still stuck in the past, in finally getting over their favourite band breaking up - it only took 8 years.
The Last Star
6.8
Rate It
Book
The Last Star is the heart-stopping finale to the bestselling 5th Wave series by award-winning...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Kingsglaive: Final Fantasy XV (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
It seems like just last week that the creators of the Final Fantasy game franchise sought to bring their vision of the universe they created, and their story, to the silver screen. Well, okay. It wasn’t last week. It’s actually been about 15 years since this really took place in 2001.
I remember being extremely excited for Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, but the movie itself escapes me today. I think the lack of a lasting impact could have to do with those same creators scrambling to find the distinction between a wide-release movie and a game they’re already heavily invested in. After re-visiting the film, I remember my initial thoughts and they remain the same today. The nowhere-near-photo-realistic animated characters battled and chased each other to and fro in a tale that made little to no sense, with or without the rules of the (bad for its time) computer animated gamescape it’s all set in.
Flash back forward to today, another Japanese made FF movie makes its way to the screen via Kingsglaive: Final Fantasy XV. Kingsglaive represents a quantum leap forward in animation and design, if not a great leap in mo-cap technology and story. The images are far more flexible, more mobile, and more tactile; though, the faces still lack expression, much less what anyone could called subtle or nuanced. The backdrops are striking and surreal, on a par with many of the big sci-fi and fantasy films hitting theaters these days.
But, take away the advertorial nature of Kingsglaive, ignore its use as a cheat sheet, prep for the players of various corners of the game world it depicts, and deal with it as a story with characters and incidents anybody not devoted to the game would watch, and it’s the same old, same old when it comes to FF. It remains a misshapen mash-up heavy with sci-fi fantasy exposition and a back story so convoluted that a single two-hour movie cannot encapsulate it.
Kingsglaive dwells mostly in the realm of fantasy, inside a universe of medieval castles, steampunk weaponry, armor, and creatrues. A world where the Kingdom of Lucis faces a new threat at the end of an uneasy peace with the Niflheim Empire. There’s a magic crystal (of course there is) and the only warriors King Regis (Sean Bean) trusts to defend it are his Kingsglaive, who are empowered by the magic of their sovereign. There are tusked wildebeest warhorses. You would think these would be the point of reference when someone shouts, “Release the DEMON!” But no, they’re actually talking about war crabs – crabs that spit out a hailstorm of fireballs.
The stakes are high, and there’s been quite a bit of intermixing of Lucians and Niflheimers in the “hundred years of peace”, but anti-immigrant backlash rears its ugly head. Taunts and slurs against the immigrants are present, as is there a wall – who says video game movies can’t be topical. With the immigrants who must prove themselves, there are good soldiers, an evil prince, all with tongue-twisting names like Lenafreya Nox Fleuret, should you choose to try and remember them.
The dialogue, delivered by the likes of Aaron Paul and Lena Heady, could have been better. Though I don’t so much blame the voice talent as much as I do the script itself, with classics like “Get back here alive! That’s an order!” and “You speak of matters beyond the wall.”
Probably the biggest thing most movie fans will remember, is the name of the city under threat. It probably has the silliest name this side of Raccoon City. They call it, Insomnia. Which is kind of ironic, because Kingsglaive may be a cure for the condition for some.
I remember being extremely excited for Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, but the movie itself escapes me today. I think the lack of a lasting impact could have to do with those same creators scrambling to find the distinction between a wide-release movie and a game they’re already heavily invested in. After re-visiting the film, I remember my initial thoughts and they remain the same today. The nowhere-near-photo-realistic animated characters battled and chased each other to and fro in a tale that made little to no sense, with or without the rules of the (bad for its time) computer animated gamescape it’s all set in.
Flash back forward to today, another Japanese made FF movie makes its way to the screen via Kingsglaive: Final Fantasy XV. Kingsglaive represents a quantum leap forward in animation and design, if not a great leap in mo-cap technology and story. The images are far more flexible, more mobile, and more tactile; though, the faces still lack expression, much less what anyone could called subtle or nuanced. The backdrops are striking and surreal, on a par with many of the big sci-fi and fantasy films hitting theaters these days.
But, take away the advertorial nature of Kingsglaive, ignore its use as a cheat sheet, prep for the players of various corners of the game world it depicts, and deal with it as a story with characters and incidents anybody not devoted to the game would watch, and it’s the same old, same old when it comes to FF. It remains a misshapen mash-up heavy with sci-fi fantasy exposition and a back story so convoluted that a single two-hour movie cannot encapsulate it.
Kingsglaive dwells mostly in the realm of fantasy, inside a universe of medieval castles, steampunk weaponry, armor, and creatrues. A world where the Kingdom of Lucis faces a new threat at the end of an uneasy peace with the Niflheim Empire. There’s a magic crystal (of course there is) and the only warriors King Regis (Sean Bean) trusts to defend it are his Kingsglaive, who are empowered by the magic of their sovereign. There are tusked wildebeest warhorses. You would think these would be the point of reference when someone shouts, “Release the DEMON!” But no, they’re actually talking about war crabs – crabs that spit out a hailstorm of fireballs.
The stakes are high, and there’s been quite a bit of intermixing of Lucians and Niflheimers in the “hundred years of peace”, but anti-immigrant backlash rears its ugly head. Taunts and slurs against the immigrants are present, as is there a wall – who says video game movies can’t be topical. With the immigrants who must prove themselves, there are good soldiers, an evil prince, all with tongue-twisting names like Lenafreya Nox Fleuret, should you choose to try and remember them.
The dialogue, delivered by the likes of Aaron Paul and Lena Heady, could have been better. Though I don’t so much blame the voice talent as much as I do the script itself, with classics like “Get back here alive! That’s an order!” and “You speak of matters beyond the wall.”
Probably the biggest thing most movie fans will remember, is the name of the city under threat. It probably has the silliest name this side of Raccoon City. They call it, Insomnia. Which is kind of ironic, because Kingsglaive may be a cure for the condition for some.