Search
Search results
Flowerpower (154 KP) rated Watership Down (1978) in Movies
Apr 24, 2017
Ross (3282 KP) rated Shoot Out the Lights by Richard & Linda Thompson / Richard Thompson in Music
May 18, 2020
Rolling Stone's 332nd greatest album of all time
This was much better than "I Want to See the Bright Lights Tonight" in my opinion. The songs vary quite markedly throughout - we get the "more Richard" songs which have a very Talking Heads/Roxy Music feel, and the "more Linda" songs, which are softer, more Carpenters. A good album overall and an interesting one.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) in Movies
Oct 3, 2019
Oringal Sci-Fi classic
Close Encounters of the Third Kind- takes elements from the thing from anethor world, the war of the worlds and many other sci-fi movies and mix them all togther and the outcome is a excellent movie, directed by one of the great directors of all time- Steven Spilberg.
The Plot: Science fiction adventure about a group of people who attempt to contact alien intelligence. Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) witnesses an unidentified flying object, and even has a "sunburn" from its bright lights to prove it. Roy refuses to accept an explanation for what he saw and is prepared to give up his life to pursue the truth about UFOs.
This is a must watch and must see film.
The Plot: Science fiction adventure about a group of people who attempt to contact alien intelligence. Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) witnesses an unidentified flying object, and even has a "sunburn" from its bright lights to prove it. Roy refuses to accept an explanation for what he saw and is prepared to give up his life to pursue the truth about UFOs.
This is a must watch and must see film.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Jaws (1975) in Movies
Aug 26, 2019 (Updated Aug 26, 2019)
Spielberg's exemplary suspense-fright machine remains the only killer shark movie you will ever need to watch. A two-course fish supper: the first half concerns police chief Roy Scheider's attempts to persuade the self-serving authorities of the danger posed by a marauding shark (post-Watergate subtext is fairly obvious); the second sees Scheider, bright young oceanographer Richard Dreyfuss, and salty sea dog Robert Shaw setting off on a primal quest to slay the monster, in a boat which may well prove to be of inadequate size.
Spielberg does an excellent job of hiding the pulpy horror-story origins of the tale, swathing it in plausible small-town Americana, low-key humour and excellent characterisation; John Williams' score is, needless to say, essential to the enterprise. The battle to the death in the second half is superbly constructed, paced and executed. Superb entertainment; I am happy to report that over forty years on, Jaws remains entirely capable of making cinema audiences squirm and scream.
Spielberg does an excellent job of hiding the pulpy horror-story origins of the tale, swathing it in plausible small-town Americana, low-key humour and excellent characterisation; John Williams' score is, needless to say, essential to the enterprise. The battle to the death in the second half is superbly constructed, paced and executed. Superb entertainment; I am happy to report that over forty years on, Jaws remains entirely capable of making cinema audiences squirm and scream.
Anand Wilder recommended Liege & Lief by Fairport Convention in Music (curated)
Dawn Marie (22 KP) rated Anne with an E in TV
Jan 19, 2018
I couldn't make it through this whole series yes I know I am partial to the Megan follows as Anne version but was open to this new one even thought the title showed promise. I watched trying to keep an open mind but the more I watched the more upset I got. I am not only a fan of the movie version but I am a fan of the books! Too much was changed and it seemed to lag. Most of the characters were not likable or interesting to me except the lady playing marilla. I don t know if it was the girl playing Anne or the dialogue That was bad. Some may like this but I recommend the books or the 1985 movie
Lee (2222 KP) rated Greed (2019) in Movies
Jan 29, 2020
On the Greek island of Mykonos, preparations are well underway for the lavish Gladiator themed 60th birthday party of multi-millionaire and 'king of the high-street', Sir Richard 'Greedy' McCreadie (Steve Coogan). A journalist turned biographer (David Mitchell) is on hand to document McCreadie's life story and some of his interviews with various acquaintances and family members combine with present day events to form a mockumentary style movie which gives us a closer look at how he went from ruthless young schoolboy to ruthless self-made millionaire.
It's 5 days until the party. Construction on a huge wooden Colosseum is progressing slowly, and a nearby caged lion is to be involved in a series of gladiator themed games for the event. Although, as McCreadies moody teenage son (Asa Butterworth) snarkily points out, it was actually tigers that featured in the movie Gladiator and not lions. Discussions are also taking place as to where the firework display will be and where Fatboy Slim and Coldplay will be performing, overseen by McCreadie himself, all fake tan and bright white teeth. His first wife (Isla Fisher) arrives with her new partner and everyone is under pressure to be ready in time.
We're taken right back to the beginning and Richards public school years. A rather unpleasant young Richard (Jamie Blackley) is back-chatting his teachers and playing cards with the other students for money. When his mother (Shirley Henderson) is called into the school, there is a heated exchange in the headmasters office and Richard ends up leaving the school. We then follow him out into the big wide world, wheeling and dealing in the fashion business, confident and persistent until he has managed to land himself a small shop and enough stock to start undercutting some of his nearby rivals. It's not long until Richard is heading out to Sri Lanka, meeting up with sweatshop managers in order to play them off against each other for the lowest possible price in order to secure himself a huge profit. As Richard grows up into the version played by Coogan, there continues to be a steady stream of different clothing shops, big ideas, dodgy deals and plenty of mishaps for him to tackle in what are some of the films funnier scenes.
Greed takes a real scatter-gun approach to plots and scenes, which for the most part don't really work. There is a completely pointless and dull subplot involving a reality TV show that's being filmed on and around the beach, with another concerning a group of Syrian refugees who have the cheek to be camped out on the beach where the party is due to take place. We zip back and forth in time, occasionally dipping into a hearing regarding Sir Richard's tax avoidance antics over the years and there's never really enough time, or enough of a decent script, to make any of it very interesting or funny. The character of McCreadie, who is clearly loosely based on Topshop CEO Philip Green, is basically just a variation of Alan Partridge, slightly different voice, some extra swearing and anger thrown in, only less funny. The movie even features Tim "Sidekick Simon" Key from the Partridge shows as an exasperated employee, trying to keep the building of the Colosseum on track with a diminishing workforce. There are plenty of celebrity cameos shoehorned in too and the whole thing is just very hit and miss. But mostly miss.
Greed concludes by showing us some pretty sobering facts and figures. We're informed that the 26 richest men in the world hold more wealth than that of the 3.6 billion poorest combined. We learn just how little the women in countries such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh earn in return for their long days putting together high street clothes, while the biggest names in retail turnover millions in profits each year. And we hear about the plight of the Syrian refugees trying to make their way to Greece. The greed and injustice of it all really hits home, and it does so far more effectively here than during the the rest of the movie.
It's 5 days until the party. Construction on a huge wooden Colosseum is progressing slowly, and a nearby caged lion is to be involved in a series of gladiator themed games for the event. Although, as McCreadies moody teenage son (Asa Butterworth) snarkily points out, it was actually tigers that featured in the movie Gladiator and not lions. Discussions are also taking place as to where the firework display will be and where Fatboy Slim and Coldplay will be performing, overseen by McCreadie himself, all fake tan and bright white teeth. His first wife (Isla Fisher) arrives with her new partner and everyone is under pressure to be ready in time.
We're taken right back to the beginning and Richards public school years. A rather unpleasant young Richard (Jamie Blackley) is back-chatting his teachers and playing cards with the other students for money. When his mother (Shirley Henderson) is called into the school, there is a heated exchange in the headmasters office and Richard ends up leaving the school. We then follow him out into the big wide world, wheeling and dealing in the fashion business, confident and persistent until he has managed to land himself a small shop and enough stock to start undercutting some of his nearby rivals. It's not long until Richard is heading out to Sri Lanka, meeting up with sweatshop managers in order to play them off against each other for the lowest possible price in order to secure himself a huge profit. As Richard grows up into the version played by Coogan, there continues to be a steady stream of different clothing shops, big ideas, dodgy deals and plenty of mishaps for him to tackle in what are some of the films funnier scenes.
Greed takes a real scatter-gun approach to plots and scenes, which for the most part don't really work. There is a completely pointless and dull subplot involving a reality TV show that's being filmed on and around the beach, with another concerning a group of Syrian refugees who have the cheek to be camped out on the beach where the party is due to take place. We zip back and forth in time, occasionally dipping into a hearing regarding Sir Richard's tax avoidance antics over the years and there's never really enough time, or enough of a decent script, to make any of it very interesting or funny. The character of McCreadie, who is clearly loosely based on Topshop CEO Philip Green, is basically just a variation of Alan Partridge, slightly different voice, some extra swearing and anger thrown in, only less funny. The movie even features Tim "Sidekick Simon" Key from the Partridge shows as an exasperated employee, trying to keep the building of the Colosseum on track with a diminishing workforce. There are plenty of celebrity cameos shoehorned in too and the whole thing is just very hit and miss. But mostly miss.
Greed concludes by showing us some pretty sobering facts and figures. We're informed that the 26 richest men in the world hold more wealth than that of the 3.6 billion poorest combined. We learn just how little the women in countries such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh earn in return for their long days putting together high street clothes, while the biggest names in retail turnover millions in profits each year. And we hear about the plight of the Syrian refugees trying to make their way to Greece. The greed and injustice of it all really hits home, and it does so far more effectively here than during the the rest of the movie.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cinderella (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Sickly Sweet
Taking a look through Disney’s back catalogue of animation is like a lesson in film history. From Snow White to Bambi and The Lion King to The Princess & the Frog, there’s something in there for everyone to enjoy.
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Soul (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
When Disney Pixar launches a big new title it comes with a lot of expectation – there are just so many titles in the back catalogue now that will forever be considered classics. Movies that raised and re-raised the bar of what animation and family film storytelling can be at the very, very best.
So, when it was announced that Soul would be shown worldwide on the excellent Disney plus channel on Christmas Day, it was something of a coup that made it The movie event of the year, as many of us would now have the shared memory of watching it post lunch, as we struggled to keep our own cosy souls and eyelids awake enough to properly enjoy it.
I must admit that my opinion of it after one watch is tinted by being very close to a complete food coma shutdown. I will need to watch it again to fully appreciate it, I think. The main thing about doing it at all was how perfect and special it felt to be doing it on Christmas Day – nothing has felt more Christmassy to me film-wise since they first aired Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on BBC1 in 1992. Such a treat with quality assured is rare indeed. The question was how good would it be in comparison to our favourites?
There were rumours from early reviews that it was more mature and adult themed than usual, and this seemed entirely true from the get go. Jazz music, a mellow vibe not racing headlong after easy laughs and the themes of existential angst and, well, death… it is quite grown up, to an extent. Not that young ones won’t enjoy it at all. It is as colourful and busy and joyous as any of them. Even if they can’t take in the concepts of the story in a deeper way, there is plenty to enjoy.
What it seems like Pixar were going for here is a film families of many generations can enjoy together; the older parents and grandparents explaining and reassuring in the deeper moments, and the young ones reminding the older ones to laugh at the silly bits! It was ever thus, but now the ambition to make it really about something significant seems achievable.
The theme of separation, loss and yes, even death is all over Pixar if you look for it. Especially with the recent Coco, which I thought was their best effort for several years. What they did with the theme of death in that one and here also is view it without fear, but as a celebration of the life that came before it, and the people that were touched by that life. It is the perennial Pixar message, that something which at first seems scary and sad is actually beautiful and wonderful if you look closer and choose to see it that way. And to their work in educating kids with that message I can only applaud in awe.
The animation itself is surprising. The “real” world being almost photo real to a jaw dropping degree, whilst the characters remain stylised. But it is the choices of simpler, somehow old fashioned styles in the before and after life sections that are striking. The semi luminous colours are also breath-taking: all calm aquamarine and soft pink, for every bright red and orange of Coco, but just as vibrant.
Pete Doctor who was responsible on this scale for Monster’s Inc, Up and Inside Out, holds the dual reigns of directing and writing expertly yet again, making things that are very hard to achieve look like cracking eggs! The voice talents of Jamie Foxx and Tina Fey do exactly what is needed in the roles without ever standing out as spectacular, as do minor roles for the likes of Graham Norton and Richard Ayoade. Spectacular is not what Soul is about, it is much more about solid qualities with deeper resonance. Personally, I never arrived at the tears in the eyes revelation moment. But that might be more about how warm and full and content I was than any criticism of something missing. There is every chance it is me that missed it.
Look, I don’t think anyone is going to be putting this amongst their top 5 Pixars any time soon, but I also can’t see anyone saying they didn’t enjoy it. The consensus seems to be “hmm, interesting, I need to think about that a while and see it again a few times”. So, for now, that is exactly what I am saying too. It may well be a classic that grows in appreciation over the years, or it may be one where you go, “nah, let’s watch Monster’s Inc. again instead”. Not sure. I’ll add a postscript right here when I have seen it a second time…
So, when it was announced that Soul would be shown worldwide on the excellent Disney plus channel on Christmas Day, it was something of a coup that made it The movie event of the year, as many of us would now have the shared memory of watching it post lunch, as we struggled to keep our own cosy souls and eyelids awake enough to properly enjoy it.
I must admit that my opinion of it after one watch is tinted by being very close to a complete food coma shutdown. I will need to watch it again to fully appreciate it, I think. The main thing about doing it at all was how perfect and special it felt to be doing it on Christmas Day – nothing has felt more Christmassy to me film-wise since they first aired Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on BBC1 in 1992. Such a treat with quality assured is rare indeed. The question was how good would it be in comparison to our favourites?
There were rumours from early reviews that it was more mature and adult themed than usual, and this seemed entirely true from the get go. Jazz music, a mellow vibe not racing headlong after easy laughs and the themes of existential angst and, well, death… it is quite grown up, to an extent. Not that young ones won’t enjoy it at all. It is as colourful and busy and joyous as any of them. Even if they can’t take in the concepts of the story in a deeper way, there is plenty to enjoy.
What it seems like Pixar were going for here is a film families of many generations can enjoy together; the older parents and grandparents explaining and reassuring in the deeper moments, and the young ones reminding the older ones to laugh at the silly bits! It was ever thus, but now the ambition to make it really about something significant seems achievable.
The theme of separation, loss and yes, even death is all over Pixar if you look for it. Especially with the recent Coco, which I thought was their best effort for several years. What they did with the theme of death in that one and here also is view it without fear, but as a celebration of the life that came before it, and the people that were touched by that life. It is the perennial Pixar message, that something which at first seems scary and sad is actually beautiful and wonderful if you look closer and choose to see it that way. And to their work in educating kids with that message I can only applaud in awe.
The animation itself is surprising. The “real” world being almost photo real to a jaw dropping degree, whilst the characters remain stylised. But it is the choices of simpler, somehow old fashioned styles in the before and after life sections that are striking. The semi luminous colours are also breath-taking: all calm aquamarine and soft pink, for every bright red and orange of Coco, but just as vibrant.
Pete Doctor who was responsible on this scale for Monster’s Inc, Up and Inside Out, holds the dual reigns of directing and writing expertly yet again, making things that are very hard to achieve look like cracking eggs! The voice talents of Jamie Foxx and Tina Fey do exactly what is needed in the roles without ever standing out as spectacular, as do minor roles for the likes of Graham Norton and Richard Ayoade. Spectacular is not what Soul is about, it is much more about solid qualities with deeper resonance. Personally, I never arrived at the tears in the eyes revelation moment. But that might be more about how warm and full and content I was than any criticism of something missing. There is every chance it is me that missed it.
Look, I don’t think anyone is going to be putting this amongst their top 5 Pixars any time soon, but I also can’t see anyone saying they didn’t enjoy it. The consensus seems to be “hmm, interesting, I need to think about that a while and see it again a few times”. So, for now, that is exactly what I am saying too. It may well be a classic that grows in appreciation over the years, or it may be one where you go, “nah, let’s watch Monster’s Inc. again instead”. Not sure. I’ll add a postscript right here when I have seen it a second time…
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!