Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Revenant (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Typical Oscar Fodder
There are two types of film critic when it comes to the Academy Awards. Those who enjoy the glamour that the Oscars bring every spring and those who despise what the awards mean for film. I’m in the latter camp, I find them out of touch with what movie-watching audiences enjoy and feel an overhaul is necessary to reflect that.
That’s not to say the Oscars reward bad films of course. Not at all. I do feel however that they, on the whole, reward technical brilliance, rather than the deeper aspects of movie-making and forget to include mass-market crowd-pleasers for fear of cheapening the ceremony.
The film everyone is talking about this year is The Revenant. With an incredible 12 nominations, it’s the one to watch in 2016. But is it actually any good?
With Birdman director Alejandro G. Iñárritu at the helm, it promises more of the exceptional performances and technical perfection he brought to that film, and that’s exactly what you get.
Leonardo DiCaprio, nominated for yet another Academy Award, stars as Hugh Glass, a hunter left for dead by his supposed comrades after a vicious bear attack leaves him gravely injured. He is supported by man-of-the-moment Tom Hardy, nominated for a Best Supporting Actor award, and British rising star Will Poulter (The Maze Runner).
DiCaprio’s Glass is a commanding presence throughout The Revenant as he tracks down those who betrayed him. With little English dialogue, it’s impressive that he is able to convey such emotion, but he does so perfectly. He’s certainly worthy of his Oscar nod, but whether or not he will be fifth time lucky remains to be seen.
Elsewhere, the cinematography that Iñárritu uses is nothing short of breath-taking. Beautiful lingering shots of snow-capped mountains, icy waterfalls and baron forests all make for a documentary-level of awe and it’s here where the film succeeds the most.
Unfortunately, the rest of The Revenant falls a little flat. The story is incredibly pedestrian considering the film’s 156 minute running time and whilst the cast are all excellent, the material is a little staid ranging from the ordinary, to the bizarre. One scene in particular had me remembering The Empire Strikes Back of all films.
The intriguing plot that Iñárritu brought to Birdman is nowhere to be seen here and as the film reaches its mightily predictable conclusion, it runs out of steam. There’s only so much landscape, however beautiful, that you can throw at an audience.
Overall, The Revenant is a technical masterpiece, flanked by impressive performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Poulter in particular, but the story just isn’t there. It may have a dozen award nominations to its name, but in this case, it’s nothing more than style over substance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/17/typical-oscar-fodder-the-revenant-review/
That’s not to say the Oscars reward bad films of course. Not at all. I do feel however that they, on the whole, reward technical brilliance, rather than the deeper aspects of movie-making and forget to include mass-market crowd-pleasers for fear of cheapening the ceremony.
The film everyone is talking about this year is The Revenant. With an incredible 12 nominations, it’s the one to watch in 2016. But is it actually any good?
With Birdman director Alejandro G. Iñárritu at the helm, it promises more of the exceptional performances and technical perfection he brought to that film, and that’s exactly what you get.
Leonardo DiCaprio, nominated for yet another Academy Award, stars as Hugh Glass, a hunter left for dead by his supposed comrades after a vicious bear attack leaves him gravely injured. He is supported by man-of-the-moment Tom Hardy, nominated for a Best Supporting Actor award, and British rising star Will Poulter (The Maze Runner).
DiCaprio’s Glass is a commanding presence throughout The Revenant as he tracks down those who betrayed him. With little English dialogue, it’s impressive that he is able to convey such emotion, but he does so perfectly. He’s certainly worthy of his Oscar nod, but whether or not he will be fifth time lucky remains to be seen.
Elsewhere, the cinematography that Iñárritu uses is nothing short of breath-taking. Beautiful lingering shots of snow-capped mountains, icy waterfalls and baron forests all make for a documentary-level of awe and it’s here where the film succeeds the most.
Unfortunately, the rest of The Revenant falls a little flat. The story is incredibly pedestrian considering the film’s 156 minute running time and whilst the cast are all excellent, the material is a little staid ranging from the ordinary, to the bizarre. One scene in particular had me remembering The Empire Strikes Back of all films.
The intriguing plot that Iñárritu brought to Birdman is nowhere to be seen here and as the film reaches its mightily predictable conclusion, it runs out of steam. There’s only so much landscape, however beautiful, that you can throw at an audience.
Overall, The Revenant is a technical masterpiece, flanked by impressive performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Poulter in particular, but the story just isn’t there. It may have a dozen award nominations to its name, but in this case, it’s nothing more than style over substance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/17/typical-oscar-fodder-the-revenant-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Nov 11, 2018
Strong performances eleveates this "Art House" film.
With not a whole lot of interest filling out the screens at the multi-plexes at this time, I thought I'd head to the "Art House" to check out Melissa McCarthy in CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME? This film is garnering strong Oscar buzz for McCarthy's performance and I figured I'd see for myself.
And...darn it all...after a slow start, it does turn into an Oscar worthy performance, after all.
Telling the true tale of writer Lee Israel (based on her memoir), CYEFM tells the story of Israel's descent into criminal behavior to make ends meet by forging literary documents from the past and selling them as the real deal.
Starring as Israel, McCarthy drops all the artifice and bluster that she usually brings to her comedic characters to bring us a "non-people" person (Israel's own words) who is down on her luck. I was a bit skeptical of this performance in the first half of the film for I thought she had fallen victim to the "comedian trying their hands at a serious role" syndrome, being WAY too serious and glum, without a hint of humor. But, in the 2nd half of the film, McCarthy really finds this character and we begin to see a fully formed 3 dimensional person emerging on the screen - warts and all. And, when Israel/McCarthy gives the speech that will be shown at her Oscar nomination, she shows that she is fully deserving of any accolades that might come her way. It is a strong, humanistic portrayal of a person trying to figure it out - and learning that the shortcut probably isn't the best way to go.
Aiding her in her journey - and in this film - is Richard E. Grant as Jack Hock, another lost soul trying to make it in this world while having a good time doing it. Grant has the "showier" of the 2 roles and he revels in his moments. I would be fine with Grant being nominated as well - it is that strong of a performance and balances McCarthy's character wonderfully.
I did have a problem with the first 1/2 of this film, mainly for I disliked the 2 main characters being portrayed, they are certainly NOT 2 people to root for and I felt the film was only showing 1 dimensional stereotypes, but once McCarthy and Grant devise the forgery scheme, the film - and the performances - get very interesting, and multi-layered, indeed.
Keep in mind that this is an "Art House" film, by that I mean "talky". There isn't a whole lot of action and a TON of atmosphere and dialogue, not the type of film for everyone, but for those of you who like this sort of thing, you'll be rewarded by strong performances that lifts this film to a higher level.
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...darn it all...after a slow start, it does turn into an Oscar worthy performance, after all.
Telling the true tale of writer Lee Israel (based on her memoir), CYEFM tells the story of Israel's descent into criminal behavior to make ends meet by forging literary documents from the past and selling them as the real deal.
Starring as Israel, McCarthy drops all the artifice and bluster that she usually brings to her comedic characters to bring us a "non-people" person (Israel's own words) who is down on her luck. I was a bit skeptical of this performance in the first half of the film for I thought she had fallen victim to the "comedian trying their hands at a serious role" syndrome, being WAY too serious and glum, without a hint of humor. But, in the 2nd half of the film, McCarthy really finds this character and we begin to see a fully formed 3 dimensional person emerging on the screen - warts and all. And, when Israel/McCarthy gives the speech that will be shown at her Oscar nomination, she shows that she is fully deserving of any accolades that might come her way. It is a strong, humanistic portrayal of a person trying to figure it out - and learning that the shortcut probably isn't the best way to go.
Aiding her in her journey - and in this film - is Richard E. Grant as Jack Hock, another lost soul trying to make it in this world while having a good time doing it. Grant has the "showier" of the 2 roles and he revels in his moments. I would be fine with Grant being nominated as well - it is that strong of a performance and balances McCarthy's character wonderfully.
I did have a problem with the first 1/2 of this film, mainly for I disliked the 2 main characters being portrayed, they are certainly NOT 2 people to root for and I felt the film was only showing 1 dimensional stereotypes, but once McCarthy and Grant devise the forgery scheme, the film - and the performances - get very interesting, and multi-layered, indeed.
Keep in mind that this is an "Art House" film, by that I mean "talky". There isn't a whole lot of action and a TON of atmosphere and dialogue, not the type of film for everyone, but for those of you who like this sort of thing, you'll be rewarded by strong performances that lifts this film to a higher level.
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
A Worthy Adaptation
There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 19th Century Classic novel LITTLE WOMEN following the adventures, loves and losses of the 4 March sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth.. My favorite is the Orono High School's production of the musical version of LITTLE WOMEN (starring my daughter as Jo), but coming in a close second is the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn starring as Jo (the quintessential Jo, in my book). So was there really a need for ANOTHER version of this?
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
GREAT chemistry between Bale and Damon
Most people are attending - or staying away from - the new James Mangold film, FORD v FERRARI because it is a "race car flick". But to label it as just that is doing a disservice to this film, so if that is what is keeping you away from this movie, think again, for this film is much more than a race car film.
It is, at it's core, a film about friendship and loyalty in the face of adversity and is a very serious contender for multiple awards this Oscar season.
A long gestating film project (Director Mangold first came across this property in 2010), FORD v FERRARI tells the tale of the Ford Motor Company's attempt to unseat the Italian car company, Ferrari, as an elite race car producer by defeating it on it's own turf - the 24 hour race at LeMans.
Entrusted to make this dream a reality by Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is (now) legendary race car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) who turns to his reckless friend - and top race car driver - Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help put this project over the top.
Will this duo succeed? Will Ford topple Ferrari? Can Shelby help smooth the rough waters that the temperamental Miles will, inevitably, create? What do you think?
But it is the journey - and not the destination - that is the joy of this film, for under the watchful, steady eye of veteran Director Mangold (WALK THE LINE) this film is much, much more than the cliched journey of a maverick bucking the system to, ultimately, prevail. It is a study of friendship and loyalty under intense pressure and Mangold finds the right balance between showing hardcore racing and the friendship and camaraderie of Miles and Shelby.
Mangold, of course, smartly knew that the success (or failure) of this film will rest on the chemistry between the two leads of this film - and he cast them well. Matt Damon brings his usual charm and easy-going attitude to Carroll Shelby, making him the heart and anchor of this film - we see the events unfold through his eyes - and he is a an easy stand-in for the audience during the proceedings and is someone that we are happy, and comfortable, to spend the 2 1/2 hours of this film with.
This is good, for he is strongly complimented - and challenged - by the hard intensity that Christian Bale brings to his portrayal of Ken Miles. This real-life racing car legend is driven (pun intended) to excellence, and does not suffer fools gladly. We spend a good amount of time in this film with Miles staring intently out the window of his race car and no one does smoldering, staring intensity better than Bale. This is another Oscar-worthy performance by an actor who has made a career of Oscar-worthy performances and has me asking - is he the finest actor working today? He certainly is in the conversation.
Bale and Damon play off each other very well, their chemistry seems real and we believe that these are 2 old friends working together. This is the first pairing of these two, and based on these results, I would guess that we'll be seeing these two in a film together again.
They are joined by strong supporting work by the likes of Letts, Jon Bernthal (portraying Lee Iacocca) and Caitriona Balfe (as Miles wife, Mollie). Only Josh Lucas (as the a-hole antagonist of the film) fares less well as his character is written in one note and Lucas just plays that note.
The racing scenes are well done - giving us the visceral intensity of what it must be like in the car, and in the pits, of a major race experience. But it is the friendship between Miles and Shelby that really is the engine that drives this film.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
It is, at it's core, a film about friendship and loyalty in the face of adversity and is a very serious contender for multiple awards this Oscar season.
A long gestating film project (Director Mangold first came across this property in 2010), FORD v FERRARI tells the tale of the Ford Motor Company's attempt to unseat the Italian car company, Ferrari, as an elite race car producer by defeating it on it's own turf - the 24 hour race at LeMans.
Entrusted to make this dream a reality by Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is (now) legendary race car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) who turns to his reckless friend - and top race car driver - Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help put this project over the top.
Will this duo succeed? Will Ford topple Ferrari? Can Shelby help smooth the rough waters that the temperamental Miles will, inevitably, create? What do you think?
But it is the journey - and not the destination - that is the joy of this film, for under the watchful, steady eye of veteran Director Mangold (WALK THE LINE) this film is much, much more than the cliched journey of a maverick bucking the system to, ultimately, prevail. It is a study of friendship and loyalty under intense pressure and Mangold finds the right balance between showing hardcore racing and the friendship and camaraderie of Miles and Shelby.
Mangold, of course, smartly knew that the success (or failure) of this film will rest on the chemistry between the two leads of this film - and he cast them well. Matt Damon brings his usual charm and easy-going attitude to Carroll Shelby, making him the heart and anchor of this film - we see the events unfold through his eyes - and he is a an easy stand-in for the audience during the proceedings and is someone that we are happy, and comfortable, to spend the 2 1/2 hours of this film with.
This is good, for he is strongly complimented - and challenged - by the hard intensity that Christian Bale brings to his portrayal of Ken Miles. This real-life racing car legend is driven (pun intended) to excellence, and does not suffer fools gladly. We spend a good amount of time in this film with Miles staring intently out the window of his race car and no one does smoldering, staring intensity better than Bale. This is another Oscar-worthy performance by an actor who has made a career of Oscar-worthy performances and has me asking - is he the finest actor working today? He certainly is in the conversation.
Bale and Damon play off each other very well, their chemistry seems real and we believe that these are 2 old friends working together. This is the first pairing of these two, and based on these results, I would guess that we'll be seeing these two in a film together again.
They are joined by strong supporting work by the likes of Letts, Jon Bernthal (portraying Lee Iacocca) and Caitriona Balfe (as Miles wife, Mollie). Only Josh Lucas (as the a-hole antagonist of the film) fares less well as his character is written in one note and Lucas just plays that note.
The racing scenes are well done - giving us the visceral intensity of what it must be like in the car, and in the pits, of a major race experience. But it is the friendship between Miles and Shelby that really is the engine that drives this film.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Roads Not Taken (2020) in Movies
Sep 15, 2020
Javier Bardem and Elle Fanning act their socks off (1 more)
Robbie Ryan cinematography is Oscar worthy
Pain and not a lot of Glory.
If you like your movies action packed you are going to dislike this movie. If you like light and uplifting stories you are going to positively loathe this one! For everyone else, "The Roads Not Taken" is a very thought-provoking piece of film-making from writer/director Sally Potter that I have a lot of respect for. Even more so, since I learned that the film is based on the director's time caring for her now deceased brother Nic, diagnosed with early onset dementia in 2010.
It's not a promising premise. "The Roads Not Taken" concerns a New Yorker with dementia being taking to the dentist and the opticians. Gripped yet? Nope... didn't think so. But stay with me here.
Elle Fanning plays Molly, daughter of the almost catatonic Leo (Javier Bardem) who is receiving a lot of support to stay in his own home. As his daughter assists him on his trip to his medical appointments, he is only about 10% 'there'. Glassy-eyed and almost incomprehensible, his utterances are often taken to refer to his present experiences. But actually, he's 90% somewhere else, revisiting two key episodes in his past life and reacting in the real world to what's happening in his dreams.
As he relives 'the roads not taken' we can piece together the elements of a life that's lived and - perhaps - lay out some elements that might have contributed to his mental decline in later life.
Before we plunge into the doom and gloom of the story, there was one moment of levity for me in the opening titles. I commented in my review of "The Farewell" that the company 'dog-tags' at the start of the film reminded me of a famous Family Guy comic moment. But this is kindergarten level compared to this movie. I assume Sally Potter must have tapped her complete phone contacts list to raise the funding for this one! Since I counted FOURTEEN different production companies referenced! Is this a record?
As you enter later life, it's common for many of us to suffer a significant source of stress. Sometimes - if you're lucky - four sources of stress. The reason? You stop worrying about your kids as much and start worrying about your aged parents and in-laws. Like heating up a frog in water, it's often imperceptible how much stress you are actually carrying with that until the last of the relatives 'shuffles off this mortal coil'. Within the grief, there's also a source of guilty relief in there somewhere. Such is the maelstrom that young Molly is in - with knobs on - given the disability of Leo. As a professional in her 20's, she is also having the juggle this responsibility with progressing her career.
It's a bit early in this turbulent year to talk of Oscar nominations. But for me, there are three standout performances in this movie:
1) Javier Bardem: what an acting masterclass! As with Daniel Day-Lewis's win in 1990 for "My Left Foot", the Academy loves a disability-based performance. I haven't seen much Oscar-buzz about this performance, but I'd personally throw his hat into the ring, for at least my long-list;
2) Elle Fanning: this young lady has been in movies since the age of 2, but rose to stardom with "Super 8". She's building a formidable filmography behind her. Here she matches Bardem shot-for-shot in the acting stakes: a caring daughter being emotionally torn apart; always needing to be in two places at the same time (as nicely positioned by the cryptic ending). A first Oscar-nomination perhaps?
3) Robbie Ryan: with an Oscar-nom previously for "The Favourite", could another one follow for this? For this is a beautiful film to look at, despite its downbeat story. There are some drop-dead gorgeous shots. One in particular is where a sun-lit Fanning has a "Marilyn Monroe subway skirt moment" at a window (with her hair being blown, I should add). Glorious. And all of the Mexican/Greek scenes (all Spain I believe) are deliciously lit and coloured.
"The Roads Not Taken" is an intelligent watch for sure, and reminiscent to me of Almodovar's "Pain and Glory": another artist's life lived again in flashback. If anything, this one is more unstructured in setting out a box of jigsaw pieces that you need to piece together through the unreliable narrator's random memories. ("Ooh, look - here's a bit with Laura Linney on it... ah, that goes there"; "So that's who Selma Hayek is"; etc.) But, as with a jigsaw, staying the course and putting the last pieces in is a very satisfying experience.
There's also a really feelgood scene in a taxi rank that restores your faith in the underlying goodness of people.... and a rant by a "Trump-voter" that gives you quite the opposite view!
Where I found some frustration was in the lack of backstory for Molly. She seems to be painted rather two-dimensionally. Yes - young with job, but of her personal life we see nothing. Adding another dimension (a young family for example) would have added yet another set of stresses to the mix. Leo's flashbacks are also focused on just two time periods. More wide-ranging reminiscences might have broadened the drama.
But I personally found "The Roads Not Taken" intensely moving. I'm not sure I could say I "enjoyed" it, but it is a worthy watch and has left me with thought-provoking images to chew on.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/15/the-roads-not-taken-2020-pain-and-very-little-glory/.)
It's not a promising premise. "The Roads Not Taken" concerns a New Yorker with dementia being taking to the dentist and the opticians. Gripped yet? Nope... didn't think so. But stay with me here.
Elle Fanning plays Molly, daughter of the almost catatonic Leo (Javier Bardem) who is receiving a lot of support to stay in his own home. As his daughter assists him on his trip to his medical appointments, he is only about 10% 'there'. Glassy-eyed and almost incomprehensible, his utterances are often taken to refer to his present experiences. But actually, he's 90% somewhere else, revisiting two key episodes in his past life and reacting in the real world to what's happening in his dreams.
As he relives 'the roads not taken' we can piece together the elements of a life that's lived and - perhaps - lay out some elements that might have contributed to his mental decline in later life.
Before we plunge into the doom and gloom of the story, there was one moment of levity for me in the opening titles. I commented in my review of "The Farewell" that the company 'dog-tags' at the start of the film reminded me of a famous Family Guy comic moment. But this is kindergarten level compared to this movie. I assume Sally Potter must have tapped her complete phone contacts list to raise the funding for this one! Since I counted FOURTEEN different production companies referenced! Is this a record?
As you enter later life, it's common for many of us to suffer a significant source of stress. Sometimes - if you're lucky - four sources of stress. The reason? You stop worrying about your kids as much and start worrying about your aged parents and in-laws. Like heating up a frog in water, it's often imperceptible how much stress you are actually carrying with that until the last of the relatives 'shuffles off this mortal coil'. Within the grief, there's also a source of guilty relief in there somewhere. Such is the maelstrom that young Molly is in - with knobs on - given the disability of Leo. As a professional in her 20's, she is also having the juggle this responsibility with progressing her career.
It's a bit early in this turbulent year to talk of Oscar nominations. But for me, there are three standout performances in this movie:
1) Javier Bardem: what an acting masterclass! As with Daniel Day-Lewis's win in 1990 for "My Left Foot", the Academy loves a disability-based performance. I haven't seen much Oscar-buzz about this performance, but I'd personally throw his hat into the ring, for at least my long-list;
2) Elle Fanning: this young lady has been in movies since the age of 2, but rose to stardom with "Super 8". She's building a formidable filmography behind her. Here she matches Bardem shot-for-shot in the acting stakes: a caring daughter being emotionally torn apart; always needing to be in two places at the same time (as nicely positioned by the cryptic ending). A first Oscar-nomination perhaps?
3) Robbie Ryan: with an Oscar-nom previously for "The Favourite", could another one follow for this? For this is a beautiful film to look at, despite its downbeat story. There are some drop-dead gorgeous shots. One in particular is where a sun-lit Fanning has a "Marilyn Monroe subway skirt moment" at a window (with her hair being blown, I should add). Glorious. And all of the Mexican/Greek scenes (all Spain I believe) are deliciously lit and coloured.
"The Roads Not Taken" is an intelligent watch for sure, and reminiscent to me of Almodovar's "Pain and Glory": another artist's life lived again in flashback. If anything, this one is more unstructured in setting out a box of jigsaw pieces that you need to piece together through the unreliable narrator's random memories. ("Ooh, look - here's a bit with Laura Linney on it... ah, that goes there"; "So that's who Selma Hayek is"; etc.) But, as with a jigsaw, staying the course and putting the last pieces in is a very satisfying experience.
There's also a really feelgood scene in a taxi rank that restores your faith in the underlying goodness of people.... and a rant by a "Trump-voter" that gives you quite the opposite view!
Where I found some frustration was in the lack of backstory for Molly. She seems to be painted rather two-dimensionally. Yes - young with job, but of her personal life we see nothing. Adding another dimension (a young family for example) would have added yet another set of stresses to the mix. Leo's flashbacks are also focused on just two time periods. More wide-ranging reminiscences might have broadened the drama.
But I personally found "The Roads Not Taken" intensely moving. I'm not sure I could say I "enjoyed" it, but it is a worthy watch and has left me with thought-provoking images to chew on.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/15/the-roads-not-taken-2020-pain-and-very-little-glory/.)
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 4, 2019
Visuals (1 more)
Action
A true monster of a movie!
This sequel to the 2014 reboot of Godzilla is an enjoyable movie. It doesn't follow the common trend of "less is more", not wasting any time showing you the visually stunning monsters in all their glory.
The plot is simple enough: Godzilla has been absent since the last movie five years ago. More monsters (called Titans here) have been discovered around the world and the mysterious Monarch group are studying them. Needless to say, it doesn't take long for things to take a turn for the worst, and when a big, bad monster is revived and starts destroying things, our old pal Godzilla returns.
This is one of those movies where you leave your brain and the real world at the door, and just enjoy it for what it is. There's a lot of criticism aimed at modern movies for overusing CGI, but this film needs it and uses it very well. The monsters look incredible, and genuinely look massive. The battles and subsequent destruction look amazing, too. It's a real treat for the eyes, packed with many WOW! moments.
Is it perfect? No. As graphically stunning as it is, the plot leaves a lot to be desired. Riddled with tiny (and the odd large) plot holes, it's a pretty basic storyline. But then, it doesn't need to be overly complex in a movie like this one.
No one comes to a Godzilla movie expecting Oscar-worthy performances and Aaron Sorkin-esque screenplays. They come to be entertained. And you will be here. Well worth stepping away from life for a couple of hours. Don't forget your popcorn!
The plot is simple enough: Godzilla has been absent since the last movie five years ago. More monsters (called Titans here) have been discovered around the world and the mysterious Monarch group are studying them. Needless to say, it doesn't take long for things to take a turn for the worst, and when a big, bad monster is revived and starts destroying things, our old pal Godzilla returns.
This is one of those movies where you leave your brain and the real world at the door, and just enjoy it for what it is. There's a lot of criticism aimed at modern movies for overusing CGI, but this film needs it and uses it very well. The monsters look incredible, and genuinely look massive. The battles and subsequent destruction look amazing, too. It's a real treat for the eyes, packed with many WOW! moments.
Is it perfect? No. As graphically stunning as it is, the plot leaves a lot to be desired. Riddled with tiny (and the odd large) plot holes, it's a pretty basic storyline. But then, it doesn't need to be overly complex in a movie like this one.
No one comes to a Godzilla movie expecting Oscar-worthy performances and Aaron Sorkin-esque screenplays. They come to be entertained. And you will be here. Well worth stepping away from life for a couple of hours. Don't forget your popcorn!
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Statham vs Massive Prehistoric Shark
Before I start my review, I think I should add a quick disclaimer. I knew fine well that I wasn’t walking into a Oscar-worthy, perfect film as soon as I booked my ticket for The Meg. With the exception of Jaws, how many shark films have actually been award worthy? We’ve seen a huge boom in shark popularity ranging from plausible to the downright stupid (yes Sharknado, I’m looking at you and your buddies). But despite my already low expectations, I still have a fair amount of criticism for what I saw.
My biggest problem from the get-go is that we get no explanation for why the megalodon, a shark that’s been extinct for 2 million years has suddenly came back to gobble people up. How did it survive? Why is it there? Even the most low budget, downright awful creature features try to offer some silly scientific explanation for why the antagonist exists at all. It’s dumb, but hey, at least they tried. The Meg makes no effort to try and explain anything which was frustrating to me. The most we got was “Oh hey, there’s this really big creature that we thought was extinct but it’s actually living down in the Marianas trench – surprise!”. This might be a sufficient explanation for some, but not for me.
Having said that, was it an entertaining film? Sure. I did really enjoy the visuals especially and thought they did an excellent job with the CGI and actually bringing this creature and the underwater facility to life. Cinematically it’s a stunning film to look at, and despite all this implausibility, it still transports you to this huge, unknown, underwater world for the duration. I’ve seen some terrible CGI in my time, but thankfully The Meg doesn’t fall into this category. These visuals make up for the cringe-worthy script and lines that were supposed to be serious and instead made me burst out laughing. But let’s be honest, I’d be disappointed if the script wasn’t this god-awful. You walk into a film like this expecting to face palm a couple of times, don’t you?
I would’ve liked a bit more brutality as the Meg is supposed to be a terrifying, monster shark that’s approximately 60 feet in length. (The Great White shark can grow up to 20 feet for comparison). Despite it’s 12 rating I’m sure more blood and violence would’ve been acceptable as Jaws managed to get away with it back in 1975. Who could forget that scene where an unfortunate fellow slides down into the shark’s mouth? Brutal. Whilst I appreciate this isn’t necessarily a horror film, it actually needed more violence and less filler scenes in my opinion. It’s not often that I ask for more violence,` especially in an action film, yet here we are.
To conclude, The Meg is a fun way to spend your evening, but it ultimately felt like a high budget B-Movie. The actors tried their best with the script they had, but even people like Jason Statham and Ruby Rose couldn’t make it better. (what was up with Statham’s accent, by the way?!). If you’re wanting a silly shark film with more substance, I’d recommend Deep Blue Sea instead
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/19/statham-vs-massive-prehistoric-shark-my-thoughts-on-the-meg/
My biggest problem from the get-go is that we get no explanation for why the megalodon, a shark that’s been extinct for 2 million years has suddenly came back to gobble people up. How did it survive? Why is it there? Even the most low budget, downright awful creature features try to offer some silly scientific explanation for why the antagonist exists at all. It’s dumb, but hey, at least they tried. The Meg makes no effort to try and explain anything which was frustrating to me. The most we got was “Oh hey, there’s this really big creature that we thought was extinct but it’s actually living down in the Marianas trench – surprise!”. This might be a sufficient explanation for some, but not for me.
Having said that, was it an entertaining film? Sure. I did really enjoy the visuals especially and thought they did an excellent job with the CGI and actually bringing this creature and the underwater facility to life. Cinematically it’s a stunning film to look at, and despite all this implausibility, it still transports you to this huge, unknown, underwater world for the duration. I’ve seen some terrible CGI in my time, but thankfully The Meg doesn’t fall into this category. These visuals make up for the cringe-worthy script and lines that were supposed to be serious and instead made me burst out laughing. But let’s be honest, I’d be disappointed if the script wasn’t this god-awful. You walk into a film like this expecting to face palm a couple of times, don’t you?
I would’ve liked a bit more brutality as the Meg is supposed to be a terrifying, monster shark that’s approximately 60 feet in length. (The Great White shark can grow up to 20 feet for comparison). Despite it’s 12 rating I’m sure more blood and violence would’ve been acceptable as Jaws managed to get away with it back in 1975. Who could forget that scene where an unfortunate fellow slides down into the shark’s mouth? Brutal. Whilst I appreciate this isn’t necessarily a horror film, it actually needed more violence and less filler scenes in my opinion. It’s not often that I ask for more violence,` especially in an action film, yet here we are.
To conclude, The Meg is a fun way to spend your evening, but it ultimately felt like a high budget B-Movie. The actors tried their best with the script they had, but even people like Jason Statham and Ruby Rose couldn’t make it better. (what was up with Statham’s accent, by the way?!). If you’re wanting a silly shark film with more substance, I’d recommend Deep Blue Sea instead
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/19/statham-vs-massive-prehistoric-shark-my-thoughts-on-the-meg/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Where to begin with Luc Besson? The masterpiece of Leon aside, he is notorious for creating beautifully bonkers visual treats that twist and turn like a monkey on cocaine, making as much sense. This comic book adaptation starts well, with some jaw dropping CG design and a decent concept – it truly is a dreamscape of glorious colour and imagination rarely matched… but so is Tim Burton’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and we all know how awful that is.
He just doesn’t have the knack with story and character in the same way as he does with the visuals, often leaving you with the impression that even the actors are confused by what is going on, and why, and what the hell is coming out of their mouths as an excuse for dialogue.
I like Dane De Haan, he has shown a lot of promise in some valiant near misses, such as Chronicle, The Place Beyond the Pines and The Cure For Wellness – three films I enjoyed, with reservations, that were better for him being in them – but he has not quite made it to the A-list as yet. Here, opposite the gorgeously cute but somehow hollow presence Cara Delevingne, he is burdened by a love story with no chemistry and some cringe-worthy banter. As the film ultimately focuses and depends on the likability of this relationship it inevitably fails; melting into comic book kookiness that loses a lot in translation.
I almost found myself hating them and wishing they would die painfully so the film could end, but not quite as much as I hated how fundamentally terrible Clive Owen was as the villain – I mean, so awkward and awful it made how uncomfortable Harrison Ford seemed in Ender’s Game look like an Oscar worthy performance. Risible. Inexcusable. Inexplicable. But that’s Besson where let loose into the realm of full sci-fi.
One corner of joy was Rihanna as the shape-shifting Bubble, who showed a charm and talent for film acting I hadn’t quite expected, and how much fun Ethan Hawke had dressing up and hamming it up as Jolly, her pimp. But essentially, you’d be better off turning the sound off completely and just drinking in the spectrum of imaginative design on display. A film that may hold some cult status into the future, and one small children may get oddly addicted to, but as a functioning and satisfying cinematic story… just, no.
He just doesn’t have the knack with story and character in the same way as he does with the visuals, often leaving you with the impression that even the actors are confused by what is going on, and why, and what the hell is coming out of their mouths as an excuse for dialogue.
I like Dane De Haan, he has shown a lot of promise in some valiant near misses, such as Chronicle, The Place Beyond the Pines and The Cure For Wellness – three films I enjoyed, with reservations, that were better for him being in them – but he has not quite made it to the A-list as yet. Here, opposite the gorgeously cute but somehow hollow presence Cara Delevingne, he is burdened by a love story with no chemistry and some cringe-worthy banter. As the film ultimately focuses and depends on the likability of this relationship it inevitably fails; melting into comic book kookiness that loses a lot in translation.
I almost found myself hating them and wishing they would die painfully so the film could end, but not quite as much as I hated how fundamentally terrible Clive Owen was as the villain – I mean, so awkward and awful it made how uncomfortable Harrison Ford seemed in Ender’s Game look like an Oscar worthy performance. Risible. Inexcusable. Inexplicable. But that’s Besson where let loose into the realm of full sci-fi.
One corner of joy was Rihanna as the shape-shifting Bubble, who showed a charm and talent for film acting I hadn’t quite expected, and how much fun Ethan Hawke had dressing up and hamming it up as Jolly, her pimp. But essentially, you’d be better off turning the sound off completely and just drinking in the spectrum of imaginative design on display. A film that may hold some cult status into the future, and one small children may get oddly addicted to, but as a functioning and satisfying cinematic story… just, no.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Mar 17, 2018
Not a bad start to this series
I have a confession to make, I have not seen the Angelina Jolie Lara Croft films, nor am I all that familiar with the video games that have spawned these movies, so it is with a fresh perspective that I judge how good (or bad) this film is.
And you know what? It's pretty good.
Starring Alicia Vikander, TOMB RAIDER is the origin story of how Lara Croft becomes a...ahem...Tomb Raider. This is the first starring role in a big "tent pole" film for her and she holds the center of the story quite well. Best known as the Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actress in THE DANISH GIRL (which I feel was a consolation prize for her from the Academy as a way of apologizing for not even nominating her for her Oscar-worthy performance in EX MACHINA), TOMB RAIDER transforms Ms. Vikander into a viable action star. Her Lara Croft is not a "super-hero" who is impervious to pain, rather, she is a real person (a tough one, I'll admit) but when she gets hurt, she feels it.
Doing everything but twirling his mustache is Walton Goggins as Mathias Vogel a rival Tomb Raider looking to raid the same tomb.
Why are they looking for this tomb? Does it matter? Nope. The fun is in the journey - and what fun there is. Norwegian Director Roar Uthaug (THE WAVE) keeps the action moving swiftly, jumping from one clue to another and one stunt to another, rarely slowing down for the audience to think - and that's a good thing, because as I'm thinking about this film a day later, I'm beginning to punch some pretty big holes in the plot. But...that doesn't matter because watching Croft/Vikander get herself out of trouble is entertaining.
Also shining in this film is Daniel Wu as Lu Ren, who's father, Lu Ren, disappeared chasing the same tomb as Croft's father (Dominic West). Ren and Crofft team up to race Vogel to the tomb.
Along for the ride in smaller-ish roles - in what appears to be the first film of a series - are such stalwarts as Nick Frost (uncredited), Jaime Winstone, Derek Jacobi and Kristen ScottThomas. All of whom must have been promised larger roles in later films in this series.
A solid start to the series. I, for one, will look forward to the next tomb that Lara Croft raids.
Letter Grade B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And you know what? It's pretty good.
Starring Alicia Vikander, TOMB RAIDER is the origin story of how Lara Croft becomes a...ahem...Tomb Raider. This is the first starring role in a big "tent pole" film for her and she holds the center of the story quite well. Best known as the Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actress in THE DANISH GIRL (which I feel was a consolation prize for her from the Academy as a way of apologizing for not even nominating her for her Oscar-worthy performance in EX MACHINA), TOMB RAIDER transforms Ms. Vikander into a viable action star. Her Lara Croft is not a "super-hero" who is impervious to pain, rather, she is a real person (a tough one, I'll admit) but when she gets hurt, she feels it.
Doing everything but twirling his mustache is Walton Goggins as Mathias Vogel a rival Tomb Raider looking to raid the same tomb.
Why are they looking for this tomb? Does it matter? Nope. The fun is in the journey - and what fun there is. Norwegian Director Roar Uthaug (THE WAVE) keeps the action moving swiftly, jumping from one clue to another and one stunt to another, rarely slowing down for the audience to think - and that's a good thing, because as I'm thinking about this film a day later, I'm beginning to punch some pretty big holes in the plot. But...that doesn't matter because watching Croft/Vikander get herself out of trouble is entertaining.
Also shining in this film is Daniel Wu as Lu Ren, who's father, Lu Ren, disappeared chasing the same tomb as Croft's father (Dominic West). Ren and Crofft team up to race Vogel to the tomb.
Along for the ride in smaller-ish roles - in what appears to be the first film of a series - are such stalwarts as Nick Frost (uncredited), Jaime Winstone, Derek Jacobi and Kristen ScottThomas. All of whom must have been promised larger roles in later films in this series.
A solid start to the series. I, for one, will look forward to the next tomb that Lara Croft raids.
Letter Grade B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
