Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Peter Rabbit (2018) in Movies
Mar 19, 2018 (Updated Mar 23, 2018)
Almost wholly ghastly bastardisation of Beatrix Potter's charming, gentle tales. Starts off with Peter Rabbit essentially killing Mr McGregor (not before contemplating sticking a carrot up his rectum) and goes on from there. 'Hilarious' jokes about Asbestos poisoning and anaphylactic shock ensue, plus a sight gag where Mrs Tiggy-Winkle walks into an electric fence.
Made all the more indefensible by a lovely fully-animated segment which completely captures the style of the original stories. Film-makers clearly not interested in that, though: not nearly 'contemporary' or 'irreverent' enough for them. Often resembles a mean-spirited parody of Beatrix Potter, twisted so it can make knowing jokes about rom-coms and so on. Very nearly completely horrible; scrapes one point for the animation sequence, another for Rose Byrne (what can I say, I'm sentimental).
Made all the more indefensible by a lovely fully-animated segment which completely captures the style of the original stories. Film-makers clearly not interested in that, though: not nearly 'contemporary' or 'irreverent' enough for them. Often resembles a mean-spirited parody of Beatrix Potter, twisted so it can make knowing jokes about rom-coms and so on. Very nearly completely horrible; scrapes one point for the animation sequence, another for Rose Byrne (what can I say, I'm sentimental).
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Peter Rabbit (2018) in Movies
Mar 28, 2018
Childhood memories, ruined
I'll be frankly honest, I knew I was going to hate this film. For one, I didn't want to watch it and got dragged against my will for a friends birthday. And I also really don't like James Corden, so this was destined to fail in my eyes.
And it really did fail. James Corden just isn't right as Peter and I really couldn't listen to him and the rest of the voice actors seemed to not quite fit either. Domhnall Gleeson is a great actor but he really hams it up to the point it gets cringeworthy. The CGI was horrific and painful to watch at times too. What happened to good old fashioned animation (which the film does use briefly)? And the script and jokes are cheesy and really miss the mark - I'll admit to having a discerning sense of humour but I didn't laugh once.
This is great puerile fun for the little ones, but all it did for me is ruin all the fond memories I have of Beatrix Potter stories from my childhood.
And it really did fail. James Corden just isn't right as Peter and I really couldn't listen to him and the rest of the voice actors seemed to not quite fit either. Domhnall Gleeson is a great actor but he really hams it up to the point it gets cringeworthy. The CGI was horrific and painful to watch at times too. What happened to good old fashioned animation (which the film does use briefly)? And the script and jokes are cheesy and really miss the mark - I'll admit to having a discerning sense of humour but I didn't laugh once.
This is great puerile fun for the little ones, but all it did for me is ruin all the fond memories I have of Beatrix Potter stories from my childhood.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Peter Rabbit (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Had they not attempt to make a movie based off a beloved children’s book
classic by Beatrix Potter, this film would be exceptional. Unfortunately,
they chose to deviate from the innocent storytelling and put a slapstick
comical spin on it. Peter Rabbit (James Corden) and his sisters, Flopsy,
Mopsy, Cottontail, and their cousin Benjamin are constantly trying to steal
vegetables from the unpleasant and always grumpy Mr. MacGregor’s garden.
Fortunately, the rabbits have one human on their side, MacGregor’s
neighbor, Bea (Rose Byrne), who reminds MacGregor, the animals were on the
land first and everyone should share.
One morning Mr. MacGregor (SamNeill) keels over after trying to save his garden from those pesky
rabbits. His straight-laced city boy grandnephew Thomas MacGregor (Dohmnall
Gleason) inherits the property and is left with trying to maintain the
“rodent” problem. An all-out war ensues between Peter and Thomas!
What made Beatrix Potter’s books so appealing, was her ability to show a
vulnerability to where the reader could sympathize with such
mischievous rabbits.
This film was chalked full of naughty behavior, jealousy, and entitlement
within the story line characters. As a film, it’s hilarious—Home Alone
type shenanigans with a little Dennis the Menace antics peppered in. Live
action mixed in with CGI effects is quite impressive—too good, you almost
think the rabbits were real. If you can deviate from the stories we’ve all
grown to love, this film is excellent, entertaining, and for the intended
audience-kids under the age of 10……… which all thought it was
“totally awesome!”
classic by Beatrix Potter, this film would be exceptional. Unfortunately,
they chose to deviate from the innocent storytelling and put a slapstick
comical spin on it. Peter Rabbit (James Corden) and his sisters, Flopsy,
Mopsy, Cottontail, and their cousin Benjamin are constantly trying to steal
vegetables from the unpleasant and always grumpy Mr. MacGregor’s garden.
Fortunately, the rabbits have one human on their side, MacGregor’s
neighbor, Bea (Rose Byrne), who reminds MacGregor, the animals were on the
land first and everyone should share.
One morning Mr. MacGregor (SamNeill) keels over after trying to save his garden from those pesky
rabbits. His straight-laced city boy grandnephew Thomas MacGregor (Dohmnall
Gleason) inherits the property and is left with trying to maintain the
“rodent” problem. An all-out war ensues between Peter and Thomas!
What made Beatrix Potter’s books so appealing, was her ability to show a
vulnerability to where the reader could sympathize with such
mischievous rabbits.
This film was chalked full of naughty behavior, jealousy, and entitlement
within the story line characters. As a film, it’s hilarious—Home Alone
type shenanigans with a little Dennis the Menace antics peppered in. Live
action mixed in with CGI effects is quite impressive—too good, you almost
think the rabbits were real. If you can deviate from the stories we’ve all
grown to love, this film is excellent, entertaining, and for the intended
audience-kids under the age of 10……… which all thought it was
“totally awesome!”
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/
Guy Garvey recommended Sky At Night by I Am Kloot in Music (curated)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the magic? Where's the sparkle?
The mesmerising story of Peter Pan has been told by numerous directors, playwrights and novelists over the years with Disney’s brilliant animation being one of the highlights in a series of standout moments.
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Legend of Tarzan (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
CPR Needed
As tends to be the case with Hollywood, studios pay very close attention to their rivals release schedules, eyeing up potential competition to pit their films against, maxing box-office returns in the process.
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
And when Disney announced they were rebooting The Jungle Book in March this year, Warner Bros quickly responded with another jungle-themed film; The Legend of Tarzan. But does this interpretation on the classic character swing or fall?
It’s been nearly a decade since Tarzan (Alexander Skarsgård), aka John Clayton III, left Africa to live in Victorian England with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie). Danger lurks on the horizon as Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), a treacherous envoy for King Leopold, devises a scheme that lures the couple and friend George Williams (Samuel L Jackson) to the Congo. Rom plans to capture Tarzan and deliver him to an old enemy in exchange for diamonds. When Jane becomes a pawn in his devious plot, Tarzan must return to the jungle to save the woman he loves.
Directed by David Yates (Harry Potter & the Deathly Hallows), Legend of Tarzan features committed performances from its lead cast, immersive scenery and impressive special effects, but all of the glitz can’t save a film that plods along at a dreadful pace. Not since Peter Jackson’s King Kong has there been a movie that wastes so much of its opening act.
Alexander Skarsgård is likeable and commanding as the titular character, but lacks enough acting prowess to tackle the deeper, more emotional side that writers Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer have brought to the table here. Therefore, the scenes featuring a solo Tarzan suffer somewhat and Samuel L Jackson feels wasted in a poorly written and half-hearted role.
It is in Margot Robbie and Christoph Waltz that we find the film’s saving graces. Their characters leap off the screen with Waltz in particular being a highlight throughout. It’s unfortunate that one of our greatest living actors is lambasted with poor dialogue however, though the script just about keeps him afloat.
David Yates brings a similar filming style here to that of his foray into Harry Potter. The action is confidently filmed, but he avoids the use of shaky-cam that many directors seem to find appealing nowadays. The CGI is on the whole very good, especially in the finale which is breath-taking to watch.
It’s just a shame the rest of the film is such a drag. The first hour is incredibly poorly paced with very brief, albeit well-filmed, action sequences not doing enough to brighten Legend of Tarzan up. Elsewhere, the use of flashbacks is at first a decent way of giving the audience some exposition, but after the tenth one, they’re a nuisance.
Overall, The Legend of Tarzan does a lot more with its iconic character than other films have done, but that doesn’t excuse its poor pacing. Thankfully, the exciting finale lifts the final act above the standard of the first hour, and commanding performances from all the cast sustain interest just about enough to see it through to the end.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/07/07/cpr-needed-the-legend-of-tarzan-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
These X-Men end not with a Bang but with a Whimper
"This is how it ends,not with a bang, but with a whimper".
Running a successful movie franchise is a tricky thing. For every franchise that ends successfully (the original Harry Potter series, the recent Avengers), there are many, many more that just sort of peter out (The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner, every version of Star Trek), and, unfortunately, this run of the X-MEN is finishing up with a look of boredom and disinterest.
And that's too bad for the DARK PHOENIX story line had great, dramatic potential to go with a series of whiz-bang special effect set pieces that should have been spectacular. Telling the tale of erswhile X-Men "hero", Jean Grey, who is turned into a villain and battles her former mates, DARK PHOENIX is filled with missed opportunities.
Let's start with the lackluster Direction and lame script - both by Simon Kinberg - a Producer and sometime writer who is making his Feature Film Directorial debut with this film. He should stay with Producing. His direction is limp and uninspired which fits in well with his uninspiring dialogue and clunky interactions and plot machinations.
At least the top notch actors can save this turkey, right?
Nope. For the most part, they are just as uninspired and mediocre as the direction and writing and that is too bad for they are a strong collection of performers. James McAvoy is just lost as Charles Xavier. I can see the look in his eyes as he is thinking to himself "what is my character trying to do here"? I didn't believe for a second that he believed anything his character was saying and doing. Same goes for the usually reliable Nicholas Hoult as Hank McCoy/Beast. The script has these two at odds with each and they both act these scenes with a "we don't buy this contrived fight either" chagrined look.
The usually reliable Jessica Chastain is wasted as the main villain in this film, a mysterious figure who serves as the anti-Charles Xavier mentor to Jean Grey (Sophie Turner, more on her later). It looks to me that she was given the "George Lucas/Natalie Portman/Star Wars: Episode 1" acting guideline - be one note and monotonous and take out any hint of emotion. Which also takes out any hint of interest.
As for Turner, I'm sorry to say this about an actress that I generally loved in GAME OF THRONES, but she is just plain bad in her role as the conflicted Jean Grey. Her character is torn between the good and the bad, but instead of acting that, she says it over and over again "I don't know what's happening to me", "I feel torn". She (and Director/Writer Kinberg) violate the #1 rule in movies - "Show, don't tell". They "tell" over and over and don't take the time to show. Disappointing wouldn't begin to describe my reaction to Turner's performance.
At least Jennifer Lawrence is there to ground this film and bring some of her star power, right? Nope. She waltzes through the few scenes she has in this film with the look of "I am contractually obligated to be here".
Well...how about Even Peters who was a bit of a breakout as Quicksilver? Nope...they, inexplicably, sideline his character fairly early on in this film.
The only saving grace in this movie is the great Michael Fassbender as Magneto. He was a welcome, charismatic presence in this film that drew my attention - and interest - the second he appeared on screen. It was great to see him and I found myself rooting for him - no matter what. Doesn't matter that Magneto's presence in this film is shoe-horned in. You could take his character out of this film and the outcomes probably wouldn't change a bit. But...I don't care...at least there was someone interesting to watch.
At least there are decent action scenes, right? Nope. Kinberg chooses to use the quick/cut edit confuse the audience style of action to cover mistakes in both choreography and geography and figures a quick cut and an explosion can cover lack of emotional commitment and interesting fight choreography.
This film closes this Chapter on these X-Men and (besides Fassbender and an "AVENGERS ASSEMBLE" moment that was pretty cool) I say good riddance. With Disney's purchase of Fox and Marvel, the X-Men can now be incorporated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe and that can only be an improvement on this.
Letter Grade C+ (Fassbender's performance keeps this from being a total failure)
5 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Running a successful movie franchise is a tricky thing. For every franchise that ends successfully (the original Harry Potter series, the recent Avengers), there are many, many more that just sort of peter out (The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner, every version of Star Trek), and, unfortunately, this run of the X-MEN is finishing up with a look of boredom and disinterest.
And that's too bad for the DARK PHOENIX story line had great, dramatic potential to go with a series of whiz-bang special effect set pieces that should have been spectacular. Telling the tale of erswhile X-Men "hero", Jean Grey, who is turned into a villain and battles her former mates, DARK PHOENIX is filled with missed opportunities.
Let's start with the lackluster Direction and lame script - both by Simon Kinberg - a Producer and sometime writer who is making his Feature Film Directorial debut with this film. He should stay with Producing. His direction is limp and uninspired which fits in well with his uninspiring dialogue and clunky interactions and plot machinations.
At least the top notch actors can save this turkey, right?
Nope. For the most part, they are just as uninspired and mediocre as the direction and writing and that is too bad for they are a strong collection of performers. James McAvoy is just lost as Charles Xavier. I can see the look in his eyes as he is thinking to himself "what is my character trying to do here"? I didn't believe for a second that he believed anything his character was saying and doing. Same goes for the usually reliable Nicholas Hoult as Hank McCoy/Beast. The script has these two at odds with each and they both act these scenes with a "we don't buy this contrived fight either" chagrined look.
The usually reliable Jessica Chastain is wasted as the main villain in this film, a mysterious figure who serves as the anti-Charles Xavier mentor to Jean Grey (Sophie Turner, more on her later). It looks to me that she was given the "George Lucas/Natalie Portman/Star Wars: Episode 1" acting guideline - be one note and monotonous and take out any hint of emotion. Which also takes out any hint of interest.
As for Turner, I'm sorry to say this about an actress that I generally loved in GAME OF THRONES, but she is just plain bad in her role as the conflicted Jean Grey. Her character is torn between the good and the bad, but instead of acting that, she says it over and over again "I don't know what's happening to me", "I feel torn". She (and Director/Writer Kinberg) violate the #1 rule in movies - "Show, don't tell". They "tell" over and over and don't take the time to show. Disappointing wouldn't begin to describe my reaction to Turner's performance.
At least Jennifer Lawrence is there to ground this film and bring some of her star power, right? Nope. She waltzes through the few scenes she has in this film with the look of "I am contractually obligated to be here".
Well...how about Even Peters who was a bit of a breakout as Quicksilver? Nope...they, inexplicably, sideline his character fairly early on in this film.
The only saving grace in this movie is the great Michael Fassbender as Magneto. He was a welcome, charismatic presence in this film that drew my attention - and interest - the second he appeared on screen. It was great to see him and I found myself rooting for him - no matter what. Doesn't matter that Magneto's presence in this film is shoe-horned in. You could take his character out of this film and the outcomes probably wouldn't change a bit. But...I don't care...at least there was someone interesting to watch.
At least there are decent action scenes, right? Nope. Kinberg chooses to use the quick/cut edit confuse the audience style of action to cover mistakes in both choreography and geography and figures a quick cut and an explosion can cover lack of emotional commitment and interesting fight choreography.
This film closes this Chapter on these X-Men and (besides Fassbender and an "AVENGERS ASSEMBLE" moment that was pretty cool) I say good riddance. With Disney's purchase of Fox and Marvel, the X-Men can now be incorporated into the Marvel Cinematic Universe and that can only be an improvement on this.
Letter Grade C+ (Fassbender's performance keeps this from being a total failure)
5 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Monster Calls (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I’ll. Be. Right. Here.”
The worst thing about this movie is its title. The second worst thing about this movie is its trailer. Both will either a) put people off seeing it (it succeeded in that with my wife for example) or b) make people conclude it is a ‘nice holiday film to take the kids to’, which is also an horrendous mistake!
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.
This is a crying shame because it is a riveting drama and a superb piece of film-making by the Spaniard J. A. Bayona (“The Impossible”) that may well catapult it already into my top 10 films of 2017. But it is not, I would suggest, a film that is remotely suitable for kids under 10 to see, dealing as it does with terminal illness, bullying and impending doom. For this is a dark (read pitch black) but hauntingly beautiful film.
Lewis MacDougall, in only his second film (after last year’s “Peter Pan”) plays Conor – a young but talented and sensitive artist growing up as a 12 year old in the North of England with his single mum (Felicity Jones). She is suffering from an aggressive form of cancer and is forever medically grasping for a new hope (D’ya see what I did there?). Young Conor believes fervently that each new treatment will be ‘the one’ but the building tension, the lack of sleep and his recurrent nightmares are destroying him mentally and physically. As if this wasn’t enough, his distracted nature is leading to him being seriously bullied at school and there is the added stress of having to live in his grandmother’s pristine and teen-unfriendly house when his mother is hospitalised.
Towering over the nearby graveyard on the hill is an ancient yew tree and Conor is visited after midnight by this “monster” (voiced by Liam Neeson). Is he dreaming, or is it real? The tree dispatches wisdom in the form of three ‘tales’, with the proviso that Conor tell the tree the fourth tale which “must be the truth”.
A tale of grief, guilt and a search for closure, this is a harrowing but rewarding journey for the viewer.
The film is technically outstanding on so many levels:
the art design is superb, with the gorgeous ‘tale animations’ being highly reminiscent of the beautiful ones in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1”;
the use of sound is brilliant, with sudden silence being used as a weapon with which to assault the senses in one key sequence;
the cinematography by Oscar Faura (“The Imitation Game”) is faultless, capturing both the dreary reality in a Northern winter with the comparative warmth of the strange dream-like sequences;
the music by Fernando Velázquez is used effectively and intelligently to reflect the sombre mood;
the special effects team led by Pau Costa (“The Revenant”, “The Impossible”) shines not just with Neesen’s monster, but with the incorporation of the root and branch effects into the ‘normal’ surroundings.
As the BFG illustrated, having a whole film carried by a young actor is a bit of an ask, but here Lewis MacDougall achieves just that like a seasoned pro. His performance is nothing short of staggering and – although a brave move by the Academy – it would be great to see him nominated for a BAFTA acting award for this.
Confirming her position in the acting top-flight is Felicity Jones, heart-wrenching in her role of the declining mum, and Sigourney Weaver is also excellent as the po-faced but grief-stricken grandmother. Liam Neeson probably didn’t add much by getting dressed up in the mo-cap suit for the tree scenes, but his voice is just perfect as the wise old sage.
The only criticism of what is an absorbing and intelligent script (by Patrick Ness, who also wrote the graphical novel) is the introduction of Conor’s Dad, played by Toby Kebbell (Dr Doom from “The Fantastic 4”), who is literally flown in from LA on a flying visit but whose role is a little superfluous to the plot.
This is exactly what “The BFG” should have been but wasn’t. It draws on a number of potential influences including “Mary Poppins”/”Saving Mr Banks” and “ET”. Wise, clever and a thing of beauty from beginning to end, this is a treat for movie-goers and a highly recommended watch. However, if you have lost someone to “the Big C” be aware that this film could be highly traumatic for you….. or highly cathartic: as I’m not a psychiatrist, I’m really not that sure! Also, if you are of the blubbing kind, take LOTS of tissues: the film features the best use of a digital clock since “Groundhog Day” and if you are not reduced to tears by that scene you are certifiably not human.