Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Goldfinch (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
The life of Theodore Decker (Ansel Elgort and Oakes Fegley) is for every changed when his mother is killed in an explosion at an art museum. In the same tragic moments when his mother is killed he also makes a decision that will help shape the rest of his life, he takes a rare and valuable painting in the chaos of surrounding. This painting, The Goldfinch, wasn’t something he planned on taking, but having it will be the only thing that brings him comfort in the days ahead. After the tragedy he is temporarily placed with a family he really enjoys. He has a best friend, Andy Barbour (Ryan Foust), and a mother figure in Mrs. Barbour (Nicole Kidman). Theodore also makes a connection to a girl Pippa (Aimee Laurence and later by Ashleigh Cummings) and her caretaker Hobie (Jeffrey Wright). Pippa and her uncle Welty (Robert Joy) were standing right next to Theodore when the explosion that killed his mother happened. Welty also passes away during the explosion but not before he would influence Theodore to take the painting. Thus changing the trajectory of the rest of his life.
This film is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning book by Donna Tartt of the same name. I have not read the book so I cannot make a comparison between the two. The director, John Crowley (Brooklyn and Closed Circuit) makes a visually beautiful film. You can tell that care was taken to make the film have a certain feel and texture. The cast is very good, including those mentioned above and Finn Wolfhard, Sarah Paulson, Aneurin Barnard and more. I particularly thought the casting of Oakes Fegley as the Young Theodore and Ansel Elgort as the adult Theodore was particularly good. The story skipped in sequence and you could see the similarity in the two actors as on character. The overall story is original and fascinating. But the film jumped around and made it feel choppy. Also the run time of two hours and twenty nine minutes somehow felt longer than that. The story moved at a snail’s pace and really seemed like it had no direction. Then in the final 10 minutes it wrapped up in a flash.
I thought overall the performances were good and the story was interesting but how it was presented really lacked. It was slow and developed in a non-compelling way. I could definitely see potential but it fell a little short for me. It did make me want to read the book and see how the author meant for the story to be told. I would recommend seeing this in a theater for the cinematography because it was beautifully shot.
This film is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning book by Donna Tartt of the same name. I have not read the book so I cannot make a comparison between the two. The director, John Crowley (Brooklyn and Closed Circuit) makes a visually beautiful film. You can tell that care was taken to make the film have a certain feel and texture. The cast is very good, including those mentioned above and Finn Wolfhard, Sarah Paulson, Aneurin Barnard and more. I particularly thought the casting of Oakes Fegley as the Young Theodore and Ansel Elgort as the adult Theodore was particularly good. The story skipped in sequence and you could see the similarity in the two actors as on character. The overall story is original and fascinating. But the film jumped around and made it feel choppy. Also the run time of two hours and twenty nine minutes somehow felt longer than that. The story moved at a snail’s pace and really seemed like it had no direction. Then in the final 10 minutes it wrapped up in a flash.
I thought overall the performances were good and the story was interesting but how it was presented really lacked. It was slow and developed in a non-compelling way. I could definitely see potential but it fell a little short for me. It did make me want to read the book and see how the author meant for the story to be told. I would recommend seeing this in a theater for the cinematography because it was beautifully shot.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Lovely in every sense of the word
2016 really does belong to Disney. The House of Mouse has been churning out some incredible films this year with the live-action remake of The Jungle Book proving sceptical audiences (and critics) completely wrong.
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Pete’s Dragon is a staple of my childhood. It was one of the three movies I would always choose to watch. So, naturally, I was a little worried when I heard about the new movie earlier this year. The teaser trailer didn’t give much to go by, but it looked promising. I trying something new this year where I do not watch anything beyond the teaser trailer (believe me, it’s killing me not to watch the new Rogue One trailer), so that’s all I had going into this. And I was pleasantly surprised.
39 years after the original, David Lowery brings us the re-invention of Pete’s Dragon. His aim was not to remake the original film, but to reinvent it. And that he did. PD opens up with a family traveling through a forest on a road trip. The young boy, Pete (Levi Alexander) is reading from a book about a lost puppy name Elliot. A tragic accident occurs, which leaves Pete by himself in the forest. As he starts to wander, a pack of wolves begins to close in on him, only to be thwarted by… you guessed it. A dragon.
Flash forward 6 years, and we now see an older Pete (Oakes Fegley) running around through the forest with Elliot, the dragon who he bonded with over the years. Pete happens upon a forest ranger, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) as she is scouting the forest, unmarking trees that were marked for cut down. She’s not a rebel, just protecting the habitat of an owl. Turns out her fiancé, Jack (Wes Bentley), and his brother, Gavin (Karl Urban), run the company that is tearing down the forest. One day, they happen upon Pete and bring him home, but Pete misses Elliot, and Elliot misses Pete. In an effort to get back to him, Elliot is discovered by Gavin who wants to hunt down Pete and bring him in. Grace seeks assistance from her father, Meachum (Robert Redford), who was always thought of as a crazy old man with his wild story of a dragon he met so many years ago. Can they help save Elliot from Gavin and his men?
While a little darker than the original, I found that I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. There are some plot holes to consider, and a little unbelievable on how fast the story develops in time passed in the universe set up here, but you have to understand that this movie is geared toward children. And I think they did well in creating an entertaining film for children and nostalgic adults alike. In fact, this screening was the quietest family screening I have ever attended. There were plenty of kids in the audience, but they were captivated.
Keeping in mind that this is truly a children’s movie, my biggest gripe was the absence of my favorite scene from the original (scorched apples, anyone?). But all in all, it is definitely something to get out to theaters to see. Lowery had indicated that he chose the appearance for Elliot as he did because he wanted to portray a dragon you could hug. Success, Mr. Lowery. Success. Pete’s Dragon is good fun for the whole family, so what are you waiting for? Go see it, already.
39 years after the original, David Lowery brings us the re-invention of Pete’s Dragon. His aim was not to remake the original film, but to reinvent it. And that he did. PD opens up with a family traveling through a forest on a road trip. The young boy, Pete (Levi Alexander) is reading from a book about a lost puppy name Elliot. A tragic accident occurs, which leaves Pete by himself in the forest. As he starts to wander, a pack of wolves begins to close in on him, only to be thwarted by… you guessed it. A dragon.
Flash forward 6 years, and we now see an older Pete (Oakes Fegley) running around through the forest with Elliot, the dragon who he bonded with over the years. Pete happens upon a forest ranger, Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) as she is scouting the forest, unmarking trees that were marked for cut down. She’s not a rebel, just protecting the habitat of an owl. Turns out her fiancé, Jack (Wes Bentley), and his brother, Gavin (Karl Urban), run the company that is tearing down the forest. One day, they happen upon Pete and bring him home, but Pete misses Elliot, and Elliot misses Pete. In an effort to get back to him, Elliot is discovered by Gavin who wants to hunt down Pete and bring him in. Grace seeks assistance from her father, Meachum (Robert Redford), who was always thought of as a crazy old man with his wild story of a dragon he met so many years ago. Can they help save Elliot from Gavin and his men?
While a little darker than the original, I found that I enjoyed this movie quite a lot. There are some plot holes to consider, and a little unbelievable on how fast the story develops in time passed in the universe set up here, but you have to understand that this movie is geared toward children. And I think they did well in creating an entertaining film for children and nostalgic adults alike. In fact, this screening was the quietest family screening I have ever attended. There were plenty of kids in the audience, but they were captivated.
Keeping in mind that this is truly a children’s movie, my biggest gripe was the absence of my favorite scene from the original (scorched apples, anyone?). But all in all, it is definitely something to get out to theaters to see. Lowery had indicated that he chose the appearance for Elliot as he did because he wanted to portray a dragon you could hug. Success, Mr. Lowery. Success. Pete’s Dragon is good fun for the whole family, so what are you waiting for? Go see it, already.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Goldfinch (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Theo Decker's life is changed forever when a terrorist attack on the Metropolitan Museum of Art destroys everything he holds dear. In the debris he finds a man who pleads with him to take his ring and go to a shop, the last words before he dies.
After leaving the museum he is brough to the home of the Barbours, the only place he seems to be able to think of and they take him in rather than see him become part of the system.
Things should slowly be getting back on track for Theo but the ring wasn't the only thing he took from the museum, in his possession he has The Goldfinch, a priceless painting that will have a hold on him his whole life.
Much like the book the film is not for the faint hearted, 880 pages has become 2 hours and 29 minutes on screen. You could probably cut another chunk off this but that change would inevitable mess with the pace, which I don't think would suit the story all that well.
I wrote a lot of notes as I sat in this film and I've had to reread them all because I can remember the film/story but I can't remember anything about how I felt about it. I left myself a handy note though... "I am incredibly bored by this."
I know that I will never make it through the book, even before the film it wouldn't have been a possibility, but I would like to know what amendments were made to cram the story into that relatively small time frame.
The thing that threw me was Luke Wilson, I don't think I've ever seen him in a dramatic role before, plenty of comedy that I really enjoy but no drama. I can't say this made me want to watch him in this sort of role again. I didn't find him convincing as Theo's dad Larry, at least not convincingly through the film. Alongside him there's Sarah Paulson, she's a great actress but I felt that (while entertaining) her show of Xandra was too over the top for a film with this tone.
Nicole Kidman always brings a character to life and this was no exception but I found the relationship between Mrs Barbour and the kids, particularly Theo, to be confusing and difficult to navigate.
Where do I start with Ansel Elgort... I saw him in Baby Driver, I wasn't a fan, I watched him in this and I wanted to see something better, I don't feel like I got that. Even with the restrained characters actors can still give the role a little glimpse of something to click with but I don't get that from Elgort. There was the briefest flicker when he's confronted by a customer but soon enough it was back to the base level.
On the plus side I found the younger incarnation of Theo, Oakes Fegley, to be very engaging on screen. He worked well with the others and added something a little lighter to the heavy aspects of the film. He worked particularly well with Finn Wolfhard as Boris, though that's another part of the film that stuck out as strange and seemed to hold little meaning other than to allow for the ending to come together.
I'm sure that this is for someone out there, that person was not me though. While it did have a few touching moments here and there I just couldn't make it past the long run time and the slow story.
What you should do
I would only recommend this to people who have read the book.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A large antiques store to explore.
After leaving the museum he is brough to the home of the Barbours, the only place he seems to be able to think of and they take him in rather than see him become part of the system.
Things should slowly be getting back on track for Theo but the ring wasn't the only thing he took from the museum, in his possession he has The Goldfinch, a priceless painting that will have a hold on him his whole life.
Much like the book the film is not for the faint hearted, 880 pages has become 2 hours and 29 minutes on screen. You could probably cut another chunk off this but that change would inevitable mess with the pace, which I don't think would suit the story all that well.
I wrote a lot of notes as I sat in this film and I've had to reread them all because I can remember the film/story but I can't remember anything about how I felt about it. I left myself a handy note though... "I am incredibly bored by this."
I know that I will never make it through the book, even before the film it wouldn't have been a possibility, but I would like to know what amendments were made to cram the story into that relatively small time frame.
The thing that threw me was Luke Wilson, I don't think I've ever seen him in a dramatic role before, plenty of comedy that I really enjoy but no drama. I can't say this made me want to watch him in this sort of role again. I didn't find him convincing as Theo's dad Larry, at least not convincingly through the film. Alongside him there's Sarah Paulson, she's a great actress but I felt that (while entertaining) her show of Xandra was too over the top for a film with this tone.
Nicole Kidman always brings a character to life and this was no exception but I found the relationship between Mrs Barbour and the kids, particularly Theo, to be confusing and difficult to navigate.
Where do I start with Ansel Elgort... I saw him in Baby Driver, I wasn't a fan, I watched him in this and I wanted to see something better, I don't feel like I got that. Even with the restrained characters actors can still give the role a little glimpse of something to click with but I don't get that from Elgort. There was the briefest flicker when he's confronted by a customer but soon enough it was back to the base level.
On the plus side I found the younger incarnation of Theo, Oakes Fegley, to be very engaging on screen. He worked well with the others and added something a little lighter to the heavy aspects of the film. He worked particularly well with Finn Wolfhard as Boris, though that's another part of the film that stuck out as strange and seemed to hold little meaning other than to allow for the ending to come together.
I'm sure that this is for someone out there, that person was not me though. While it did have a few touching moments here and there I just couldn't make it past the long run time and the slow story.
What you should do
I would only recommend this to people who have read the book.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A large antiques store to explore.