Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated House of Gucci (2021) in Movies
May 14, 2022
Not As Bad As You Heard
“It’s Not As Bad As You Heard” is the very definition of damning with faint praise, but that phrase accurately describes one of the highest profile film failures of 2021 - HOUSE OF GUCCI.
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Napoleon (2023) in Movies
Dec 6, 2023
Whole Does Not Equal The Sum of it's Parts
The new Epic Motion Picture NAPOLEON is the perfect example of the term “the whole does not equal the sum of the parts”. There are some very, very good items in this film, they just don’t combine to make a Motion Picture above the average.
Directed by Ridley Scott (GLADIATOR), NAPOLEON tells the tale of the titular Frenchman who rises to great power only to fall to great defeat. It is a story ripe for a fascinating film, this just isn’t that film.
There are many, many things that work in this movie, like the performance of Oscar Winner Joaquin Phoenix (THE JOKER) as Napoleon. He plays him as an enigmatic figure who is over-compensating for a lack of…something. Bravery? Self-Confidence? Height? That’s the problem, the film never delves into it, it just gives us a quirky character - strongly played by Phoenix - who is, obviously, using his power and skills as a General to cover up a flaw…whatever that is.
Vanessa Kirby (Oscar Nominated for PIECES OF A WOMAN a few years back) is equally strong and enigmatic as Napoleon’s Empress, Josephine. Kirby’s performance is, probably, the strongest in the film as she plays Josephine as strong and independent, living by her own rules and knowing that she has the powerful Napoleon at her beck-and-call. But, again, we never really find out the person behind the facade and her scenes with Phoenix/Napoleon fall flat for there never is any really love or passion between the 2 of them, just a “baby boy” fawning all over Josephine and a manipulative (we think) social climber using this “baby boy”.
4x Oscar Nominee (but never a winner) Ridley Scott (GLADIATOR) knows how to produce an EPIC and he puts together some EPIC Battle Scenes and Napoleon’s Emperor Inauguration scene is one to behold (which is why you should see this film on the largest screen possible) but these scenes seem isolated and separated from the rest of the film.
And, there, is where the problem of the film is. We have an interesting performance by Phoenix, a strong performance by Kirby and EPIC scenes from Scott, but they all seem isolated and in their own film and never quite gel together to build any emotional connection. All seem cold, flat and calculated. There is none of the passion that Napoleon says he has for France.
Go to marvel at the craft of the film, leave feeling unfulfilled, emotionally by NAPOLEON.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Ridley Scott (GLADIATOR), NAPOLEON tells the tale of the titular Frenchman who rises to great power only to fall to great defeat. It is a story ripe for a fascinating film, this just isn’t that film.
There are many, many things that work in this movie, like the performance of Oscar Winner Joaquin Phoenix (THE JOKER) as Napoleon. He plays him as an enigmatic figure who is over-compensating for a lack of…something. Bravery? Self-Confidence? Height? That’s the problem, the film never delves into it, it just gives us a quirky character - strongly played by Phoenix - who is, obviously, using his power and skills as a General to cover up a flaw…whatever that is.
Vanessa Kirby (Oscar Nominated for PIECES OF A WOMAN a few years back) is equally strong and enigmatic as Napoleon’s Empress, Josephine. Kirby’s performance is, probably, the strongest in the film as she plays Josephine as strong and independent, living by her own rules and knowing that she has the powerful Napoleon at her beck-and-call. But, again, we never really find out the person behind the facade and her scenes with Phoenix/Napoleon fall flat for there never is any really love or passion between the 2 of them, just a “baby boy” fawning all over Josephine and a manipulative (we think) social climber using this “baby boy”.
4x Oscar Nominee (but never a winner) Ridley Scott (GLADIATOR) knows how to produce an EPIC and he puts together some EPIC Battle Scenes and Napoleon’s Emperor Inauguration scene is one to behold (which is why you should see this film on the largest screen possible) but these scenes seem isolated and separated from the rest of the film.
And, there, is where the problem of the film is. We have an interesting performance by Phoenix, a strong performance by Kirby and EPIC scenes from Scott, but they all seem isolated and in their own film and never quite gel together to build any emotional connection. All seem cold, flat and calculated. There is none of the passion that Napoleon says he has for France.
Go to marvel at the craft of the film, leave feeling unfulfilled, emotionally by NAPOLEON.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
JT (287 KP) rated A Good Year (2006) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
This is certainly not your conventional Ridley Scott film, but it’s one that was well shot but not very well written. Investment broker Max Skinner (Russell Crowe) knows only one thing, how to make money. But when he inherits his Uncle’s chateau in Provence where he spent much of his childhood he must decide between the life he has in London or the life in France.
After arriving in Provence the only thing on his mind is to sell, but with childhood memories floating all around him as well as women it’s not long before the predictable is happening.It provides enough and features some telling performances but it’s simply not funny enough to register as the comedy it so desperately strives to be. The film most notably reunited Scott with Crowe and their first foray into a romantic comedy, with not a great deal of success.
A Good Year has scenery could not be more fitting for a romantic comedy, and the picturesque winery is paramount to the beautiful shots it creates. However, at times it looks more like a car advert than a film.
On the comedy aspect there are a few small laughs but they fall flat as Crowe is not able to deliver on them, you wonder if Hugh Grant might have done a better job. Crowe’s upper class English accent is out of place against the free flowing French that is predominant throughout and he’d probably feel more at home with large sword in his hand as opposed to a wine bottle.
The introduction of Uncle Henry’s supposedly long lost daughter throws a complicated spanner in the works which does more harm than good. It’s a heartwarming tale and it will tug on the heart strings of all the old romantics out there, but Scott and Crowe have never made a romantic comedy before and it certainly shows. It’s not got the characteristics of a fine wine, but may get past some peoples tastes.
After arriving in Provence the only thing on his mind is to sell, but with childhood memories floating all around him as well as women it’s not long before the predictable is happening.It provides enough and features some telling performances but it’s simply not funny enough to register as the comedy it so desperately strives to be. The film most notably reunited Scott with Crowe and their first foray into a romantic comedy, with not a great deal of success.
A Good Year has scenery could not be more fitting for a romantic comedy, and the picturesque winery is paramount to the beautiful shots it creates. However, at times it looks more like a car advert than a film.
On the comedy aspect there are a few small laughs but they fall flat as Crowe is not able to deliver on them, you wonder if Hugh Grant might have done a better job. Crowe’s upper class English accent is out of place against the free flowing French that is predominant throughout and he’d probably feel more at home with large sword in his hand as opposed to a wine bottle.
The introduction of Uncle Henry’s supposedly long lost daughter throws a complicated spanner in the works which does more harm than good. It’s a heartwarming tale and it will tug on the heart strings of all the old romantics out there, but Scott and Crowe have never made a romantic comedy before and it certainly shows. It’s not got the characteristics of a fine wine, but may get past some peoples tastes.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Last Duel (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
Three nuanced perspectives on a winter’s tale.
In Ridley Scott’s new movie “The Last Duel” we are in the late 14th century in France. And – apart from in one scene – it appears to be perpetual winter!
Plot Summary:
Widowed Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon) is a battle-hardened warrior, loyal to King Charles VI of France (Alex Lawther). He is becoming progressively estranged from his one-time friend Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver), a personal favourite of Normandy ruler Pierre d’Alençon (Ben Affleck).
But Carrouges’ lovely new wife Marguerite (Jodie Comer) accuses Le Gris of a terrible crime. But who is telling the truth? Only God can decide, as Carrouges and Le Gris must duel to the death.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Jodie Comer, Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Ben Affleck.
Directed by: Ridley Scott.
Written by: Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Nicole Holofcener.
“The Last Duel” Review: Positives:
It’s an intriguing script – the first collaboration between Damon and Affleck since their Oscar-winning “Good Will Hunting” from 25 years ago. It presents 3 different versions of “the truth” from three different perspectives. (One of these – Marguerite’s version – is suggested as being the ‘actual’ truth through a clever delayed fade of the chapter title). Many of the same scenes are repeated in each variant: sometimes with obvious differences in fact; sometimes with the slightest nuance of tone or expression; and sometimes with no change to the visuals, but with the benefit of hearing the dialogue being spoken. Very clever.
“Killing Eve”‘s Jodie Comer is just brilliant here. She is the master of nuanced expression, and she genuinely deserves an Oscar nomination for this work. Combined with her great and fun role in the surprise summer hit “Free Guy“, Comer is surely on a path to movie acting greatness.
Damon, Driver and Affleck also have great fun with their roles: they are all eminently watchable and this is a study in acting greatness. But I particularly loved Alex Lawther’s turn as the king: all excitable childish power in the body of a young adult.
Battle scenes and the final duel are delivered in visceral nature reminiscent of Ridley Scott’s famous battle and arena scenes in “Gladiator”.
Excellent production design and special effects on show here. Another Oscar nomination perhaps? The movie was filmed in the Dordogne region of France and also – after a 2020 Covid lockdown – in Ireland.
Negatives:
At two and a half hours it’s another long film (is October 2021 designated long film month??). And although the nuances between the different versions of reality are fascinating, there’s a degree of tedium involved in rehashing the same scenes (in some cases) for the third time. Arguably I think a few of these re-versions could have been omitted to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
Summary Thoughts on “The Last Duel”
This is Ridley Scott back on top form again. I found this a gripping watch. As the film opens, we are teased with the start of the ‘boss level’ duel between Damon and Driver. But these final dramatic scenes are the emotional lynchpin of the movie since only then do you understand the background and the ramifications of the fight.
Evidently, 14th Century France was NOT a great time for sexual equality. Women were merely chattels, denied not only fair play and self-determination, but also the bedroom niceties of foreplay and, in most cases, orgasms. As the story was based on real events, the courage and determination of Marguerite of Carrouges were extraordinary. And Jodie Comer’s portrayal of her wonderfully demonstrates, yet again, why she is the UK’s most exciting acting export for many years.
Plot Summary:
Widowed Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon) is a battle-hardened warrior, loyal to King Charles VI of France (Alex Lawther). He is becoming progressively estranged from his one-time friend Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver), a personal favourite of Normandy ruler Pierre d’Alençon (Ben Affleck).
But Carrouges’ lovely new wife Marguerite (Jodie Comer) accuses Le Gris of a terrible crime. But who is telling the truth? Only God can decide, as Carrouges and Le Gris must duel to the death.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Jodie Comer, Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Ben Affleck.
Directed by: Ridley Scott.
Written by: Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Nicole Holofcener.
“The Last Duel” Review: Positives:
It’s an intriguing script – the first collaboration between Damon and Affleck since their Oscar-winning “Good Will Hunting” from 25 years ago. It presents 3 different versions of “the truth” from three different perspectives. (One of these – Marguerite’s version – is suggested as being the ‘actual’ truth through a clever delayed fade of the chapter title). Many of the same scenes are repeated in each variant: sometimes with obvious differences in fact; sometimes with the slightest nuance of tone or expression; and sometimes with no change to the visuals, but with the benefit of hearing the dialogue being spoken. Very clever.
“Killing Eve”‘s Jodie Comer is just brilliant here. She is the master of nuanced expression, and she genuinely deserves an Oscar nomination for this work. Combined with her great and fun role in the surprise summer hit “Free Guy“, Comer is surely on a path to movie acting greatness.
Damon, Driver and Affleck also have great fun with their roles: they are all eminently watchable and this is a study in acting greatness. But I particularly loved Alex Lawther’s turn as the king: all excitable childish power in the body of a young adult.
Battle scenes and the final duel are delivered in visceral nature reminiscent of Ridley Scott’s famous battle and arena scenes in “Gladiator”.
Excellent production design and special effects on show here. Another Oscar nomination perhaps? The movie was filmed in the Dordogne region of France and also – after a 2020 Covid lockdown – in Ireland.
Negatives:
At two and a half hours it’s another long film (is October 2021 designated long film month??). And although the nuances between the different versions of reality are fascinating, there’s a degree of tedium involved in rehashing the same scenes (in some cases) for the third time. Arguably I think a few of these re-versions could have been omitted to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
Summary Thoughts on “The Last Duel”
This is Ridley Scott back on top form again. I found this a gripping watch. As the film opens, we are teased with the start of the ‘boss level’ duel between Damon and Driver. But these final dramatic scenes are the emotional lynchpin of the movie since only then do you understand the background and the ramifications of the fight.
Evidently, 14th Century France was NOT a great time for sexual equality. Women were merely chattels, denied not only fair play and self-determination, but also the bedroom niceties of foreplay and, in most cases, orgasms. As the story was based on real events, the courage and determination of Marguerite of Carrouges were extraordinary. And Jodie Comer’s portrayal of her wonderfully demonstrates, yet again, why she is the UK’s most exciting acting export for many years.
David McK (3562 KP) rated Gladiator 2 (2024) in Movies
Dec 6, 2024 (Updated Dec 6, 2024)
"My name is Gladiator"
It's only taken nearly a quarter of a century, and some insane ideas, before Ridley Scott made a sequel to his ground-breaking 2000 film Gladiator, often credited with kickstarting the resurgence in 'swords and sandels' films of the early 2000s.
In this, which plays a heavy debt to that earlier film, Paul Mescal stars as Hanno who, it turns out, also played a pivotal role in that earlier film (I don't want to give too much away, other than to say he's playing the same character circa 20 years later) and who, like Maximus before him, ends up fighting for his life in the Roman Arena for the amusement of the Roman mob.
Denzel Washington, this time, plays a role somewhat similar to Oliver Reed did in the first film, with - here - 2 Emperors instead of 1 (Commodus) in the persons of the twins Geta and Caracella - and with able support provided by the likes of Pedro Pascal (whom the trailers will make you think has a bigger role than he does) and Connie Nielsen.
Good, yes, but not up to the standards of the first.
In this, which plays a heavy debt to that earlier film, Paul Mescal stars as Hanno who, it turns out, also played a pivotal role in that earlier film (I don't want to give too much away, other than to say he's playing the same character circa 20 years later) and who, like Maximus before him, ends up fighting for his life in the Roman Arena for the amusement of the Roman mob.
Denzel Washington, this time, plays a role somewhat similar to Oliver Reed did in the first film, with - here - 2 Emperors instead of 1 (Commodus) in the persons of the twins Geta and Caracella - and with able support provided by the likes of Pedro Pascal (whom the trailers will make you think has a bigger role than he does) and Connie Nielsen.
Good, yes, but not up to the standards of the first.
Nick Friesen (96 KP) rated Blade Runner (1982) in Movies
Jul 13, 2017
Dark and gorgeous setting (4 more)
Harrison Ford
Thought-provoking premise
That moody Vangelis score
Rutger Hauer
Best in Class Cyberpunk Neo-Noir
Most Sci-Fi fans these days probably rank Blade Runner somewhere in their top five favorites. Its status and influence on Sci-Fi, especially in the Cyberpunk sub-genre, is undeniable. When it was first released in 1982, however, it was not so well appreciated. It was met with polarized reviews and underwhelming domestic box office figures. This was probably due to some misplaced expectations of the movie. The studio erroneously marketed Blade Runner as an action/adventure, and not to mention, Harrison Ford was riding the fame of another Sci-Fi franchise that was much more action-oriented. It's no surprise then, that audiences and critics alike were initially turned off by the slow-burn pacing of detective noir that Blade Runner pulled into a science fiction setting. Today, Blade Runner is a celebrated masterpiece of filmmaking and adored by fans around the world. However, with a sequel coming soon, those new to the franchise might be a little confused due to the existence of multiple versions of the film. Let's clear that up a bit.
Fast-forward ten years to 1992, when the world received the Director's Cut of the film. At the time, Blade Runner had picked up in popularity through video rental and the international market, and the studio was prompted to release an official Director's Cut after an unofficial version was being made available from a workprint. The Director's Cut was the first introduction to Blade Runner for a whole new generation, including myself.
Fast-forward fifteen more years to 2007, when Ridley Scott brought Blade Runner fans his definitive version of the movie, the Final Cut. Blade Runner: The Final Cut was digitally remastered and reworked by Ridley Scott with complete artistic freedom, whereas the Director's Cut was created by the studio without his involvement. This version fixes some technical problems that persisted from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut, and adds back a little story to better fulfill Ridley Scott's original vision for the film.
If you're looking to get into Blade Runner before Blade Runner 2049 hits theatres in October, the Final Cut is probably the best place to start. It offers the most cohesive viewing experience, complete with restored visuals. Believe me when I tell you there is no movie quite like Blade Runner. Watching Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) track down and "retire" replicants on the streets of a dystopian Los Angeles awash in neon signs never ceases to fill me with awe. Rutger Hauer's performance as the main antagonist, Roy Batty, is both chilling and thought-provoking, making viewers question what being human truly means.
Blade Runner is now widely considered to be not just the first example of Cyberpunk in film, but also the best. And for good reason, as every frame is a work of art, and the philosophical questions it first posed 35 years ago are still being debated today. Us die-hard fans can only pray the upcoming sequel doesn't completely obliterate the mystery and pathos of the replicant condition.
Fast-forward ten years to 1992, when the world received the Director's Cut of the film. At the time, Blade Runner had picked up in popularity through video rental and the international market, and the studio was prompted to release an official Director's Cut after an unofficial version was being made available from a workprint. The Director's Cut was the first introduction to Blade Runner for a whole new generation, including myself.
Fast-forward fifteen more years to 2007, when Ridley Scott brought Blade Runner fans his definitive version of the movie, the Final Cut. Blade Runner: The Final Cut was digitally remastered and reworked by Ridley Scott with complete artistic freedom, whereas the Director's Cut was created by the studio without his involvement. This version fixes some technical problems that persisted from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut, and adds back a little story to better fulfill Ridley Scott's original vision for the film.
If you're looking to get into Blade Runner before Blade Runner 2049 hits theatres in October, the Final Cut is probably the best place to start. It offers the most cohesive viewing experience, complete with restored visuals. Believe me when I tell you there is no movie quite like Blade Runner. Watching Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) track down and "retire" replicants on the streets of a dystopian Los Angeles awash in neon signs never ceases to fill me with awe. Rutger Hauer's performance as the main antagonist, Roy Batty, is both chilling and thought-provoking, making viewers question what being human truly means.
Blade Runner is now widely considered to be not just the first example of Cyberpunk in film, but also the best. And for good reason, as every frame is a work of art, and the philosophical questions it first posed 35 years ago are still being debated today. Us die-hard fans can only pray the upcoming sequel doesn't completely obliterate the mystery and pathos of the replicant condition.
The Astounding Illustrated History of Science Fiction
Dave Golder, Jess Nevins, Russ Thorne and Sarah Dobbs
Book
A truly astonishing, illustrated history of Science fiction, covering fantasy, and horror, with...
Ben Wheatley recommended Blade Runner (1982) in Movies (curated)
Bostonian916 (449 KP) rated Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) in Movies
Aug 5, 2020
So. Much. Potential. Squandered.
The primary actors in this movie could make baking bread interesting. Yet somehow, the great Ridley Scott found a way to admonish them to caricatures of their potential.
I don't recall a time where I was more disappointed in a movie. From a visualization standpoint, it was actually very good. From every other standpoint, it was rubbish.
I understand very clearly that any time a film gets made from source material that there will be exception. There is no way to convey everything that can be stated in words onto film. I get that. I actually advocate for not comparing movies to their source material too heavily for this reason. However, the source material should somewhat be represented on some level. In this case, it was not. Not remotely.
In addition to that glaring gaff, the way that the story is actually told is done so in such a muddled way that there isn't a way to actually follow it with any sense of logic whatsoever. Nothing is tied together and things happen completely arbitrarily as if only to extend the length of an already sleep movie.
Maybe I'm missing something, but from what I can see this movie should have stayed on the cutting room floor. To call this an abomination would be a disservice to the word itself.
The primary actors in this movie could make baking bread interesting. Yet somehow, the great Ridley Scott found a way to admonish them to caricatures of their potential.
I don't recall a time where I was more disappointed in a movie. From a visualization standpoint, it was actually very good. From every other standpoint, it was rubbish.
I understand very clearly that any time a film gets made from source material that there will be exception. There is no way to convey everything that can be stated in words onto film. I get that. I actually advocate for not comparing movies to their source material too heavily for this reason. However, the source material should somewhat be represented on some level. In this case, it was not. Not remotely.
In addition to that glaring gaff, the way that the story is actually told is done so in such a muddled way that there isn't a way to actually follow it with any sense of logic whatsoever. Nothing is tied together and things happen completely arbitrarily as if only to extend the length of an already sleep movie.
Maybe I'm missing something, but from what I can see this movie should have stayed on the cutting room floor. To call this an abomination would be a disservice to the word itself.
Andrew Kennedy (199 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Aug 31, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
A new Alien film is something I look forward too. They promised we would find out about xeno origins and see new strains. Plus, Ridley was directing, what could go wrong?
You could end up making a film that feels like a remake of the first film.
The set up to get us to the planet, crew interaction and things going badly wrong on the planet feels so familiar.
So the positives, Michael Fassbender is outstanding in his performance as Walter/David. He seriously acts rings round anybody else.
The score is fabulous and rich.
Danny McBride is also noteworthy for his performance.
Katherine Waterston is likeable but feels like trying to be Ripley but not.
Negatives the Xenos get very little screen time. I think were 45 mins+ in before we see one.
Billy Crudup is very unlikeable and his death barely made me care.
The origin story ending up been David created the xenos. I don't know this stuck in my craw a bit. I just feel vengeful synthetic created the ultimate organism is a bit of a let down.
After, the first film Scott said he expected other sequels to ask "where did the xeno come from?" question.
The problem is that question is difficult to give a satisfactory answer too. Like most fandom people have there own theories and in truth does it matter?
Covenant has big ideas, it just doesn't execute them all properly.
You could end up making a film that feels like a remake of the first film.
The set up to get us to the planet, crew interaction and things going badly wrong on the planet feels so familiar.
So the positives, Michael Fassbender is outstanding in his performance as Walter/David. He seriously acts rings round anybody else.
The score is fabulous and rich.
Danny McBride is also noteworthy for his performance.
Katherine Waterston is likeable but feels like trying to be Ripley but not.
Negatives the Xenos get very little screen time. I think were 45 mins+ in before we see one.
Billy Crudup is very unlikeable and his death barely made me care.
The origin story ending up been David created the xenos. I don't know this stuck in my craw a bit. I just feel vengeful synthetic created the ultimate organism is a bit of a let down.
After, the first film Scott said he expected other sequels to ask "where did the xeno come from?" question.
The problem is that question is difficult to give a satisfactory answer too. Like most fandom people have there own theories and in truth does it matter?
Covenant has big ideas, it just doesn't execute them all properly.