Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Alien (1979) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020
This classic holds up very, very well more than 40 years later
I convinced my cynical 19 year old to watch an "ancient" film (her phrase) - so I was careful with my choice. I know she likes horror, so thought I would try to see if she could be scared the old fashioned way and pulled the 1979 Sci-Fi/Horror classic ALIEN off the shelves to show her.
It scared the crap outta her.
Directed by Ridley Scott (more on him later) Alien tells the tale of a working-class deep space vehicle, returning home with a full cargo when they intercept a distress call at a distant, non-descript planet, they go to investigate and...
As told by Ridley Scott, based on a script and story by Dan O'Bannon, Alien is a masterwork in suspense and mood. Scott takes his time telling this story, setting up the feel and atmosphere, showing a gritty, working-man's vessel (and not a sleek silver and chrome shiny ship) where the people inside the craft are not heroes, but working class stiff's just trying to make a buck.
What surprised me this time around seeing this film is how deliberate (some would say slow) that the pacing of this film is - but, darn it all, if it doesn't work. The tension slowly builds so when violence/action happens it explodes and seems all the bigger due to the fact that it is coming out of silence.
The cast - a group of relative unknowns at the time - is stellar. In the DVD commentary, Director Scott said he spent quite a bit of time casting this film to ensure he had the right mix - and his work shows on screen. The 7 actors in this film work well together - and each one of them brings a real character to the screen that is interesting to watch.
Tom Skerrit (the film version of M*A*S*H) as laconic, laid back Captain Dallas and Yaphet Kotto (the villain in the James Bond flick LIVE AND LET DIE) as gruff, looking-for-a-buck mechanic Parker were the most well known of the 7 at the time of the release of the film - and they do bring some star power to the proceedings, but are met, evenly, by others like former child star Veronica Cartwright (Alfred Hitchcock's THE BIRDS), veteran character Actor Harry Dean Stanton ( THE ROSE) and John Hurt (THE ELEPHANT MAN). All 3 bring interesting characters - and faces - to the proceedings.
But...for me 2 the standouts in this cast is IAN HOLM (TIME BANDITS) as Science Officer Ash - a character with some "quirks" (to put it mildly) and, of course Sigourney Weaver (GHOSTBUSTERS) in her star making role as 3rd officer Ripley. I don't want to spoil anything in this film, but Weaver's Ripley is the type of strong female character - fighting the typical, chauvinistic male hierarchy - that was heretofore unknown/rarely seen in film and is the prototype of these types of characters to this day. Weaver's performance and the writing and direction of this character is that strong/groundbreaking that it continues to influence writing and filmmaking all these years later.
The 8th character in this film is the look and feel of the ship - the Nostromo - and the look and feel of the titular Alien character as brought to life in an Oscar winning effort in Visual Effects for the team of H.R. Giger, Carlo Rambaldi, Brian Johnson, Nick Allder and Dennis Ayling (based on drawings by Giger). This is truly remarkable, bravura and groundbreaking design and filmmaking - one that holds up very well more than 40 years later - made all the more astounding when you realize that these are all practical effects (CGI had not be invented yet) and the filmmakers had to rely on puppetry, editing, performance and what you don't see (but your mind thinks you do) to fill in the gaps.
It all works tremendously well - if you haven't seen this in awhile, do yourself a favor and watch it again. If you have never seen it, well...you are in for a treat.
Letter Grade: A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It scared the crap outta her.
Directed by Ridley Scott (more on him later) Alien tells the tale of a working-class deep space vehicle, returning home with a full cargo when they intercept a distress call at a distant, non-descript planet, they go to investigate and...
As told by Ridley Scott, based on a script and story by Dan O'Bannon, Alien is a masterwork in suspense and mood. Scott takes his time telling this story, setting up the feel and atmosphere, showing a gritty, working-man's vessel (and not a sleek silver and chrome shiny ship) where the people inside the craft are not heroes, but working class stiff's just trying to make a buck.
What surprised me this time around seeing this film is how deliberate (some would say slow) that the pacing of this film is - but, darn it all, if it doesn't work. The tension slowly builds so when violence/action happens it explodes and seems all the bigger due to the fact that it is coming out of silence.
The cast - a group of relative unknowns at the time - is stellar. In the DVD commentary, Director Scott said he spent quite a bit of time casting this film to ensure he had the right mix - and his work shows on screen. The 7 actors in this film work well together - and each one of them brings a real character to the screen that is interesting to watch.
Tom Skerrit (the film version of M*A*S*H) as laconic, laid back Captain Dallas and Yaphet Kotto (the villain in the James Bond flick LIVE AND LET DIE) as gruff, looking-for-a-buck mechanic Parker were the most well known of the 7 at the time of the release of the film - and they do bring some star power to the proceedings, but are met, evenly, by others like former child star Veronica Cartwright (Alfred Hitchcock's THE BIRDS), veteran character Actor Harry Dean Stanton ( THE ROSE) and John Hurt (THE ELEPHANT MAN). All 3 bring interesting characters - and faces - to the proceedings.
But...for me 2 the standouts in this cast is IAN HOLM (TIME BANDITS) as Science Officer Ash - a character with some "quirks" (to put it mildly) and, of course Sigourney Weaver (GHOSTBUSTERS) in her star making role as 3rd officer Ripley. I don't want to spoil anything in this film, but Weaver's Ripley is the type of strong female character - fighting the typical, chauvinistic male hierarchy - that was heretofore unknown/rarely seen in film and is the prototype of these types of characters to this day. Weaver's performance and the writing and direction of this character is that strong/groundbreaking that it continues to influence writing and filmmaking all these years later.
The 8th character in this film is the look and feel of the ship - the Nostromo - and the look and feel of the titular Alien character as brought to life in an Oscar winning effort in Visual Effects for the team of H.R. Giger, Carlo Rambaldi, Brian Johnson, Nick Allder and Dennis Ayling (based on drawings by Giger). This is truly remarkable, bravura and groundbreaking design and filmmaking - one that holds up very well more than 40 years later - made all the more astounding when you realize that these are all practical effects (CGI had not be invented yet) and the filmmakers had to rely on puppetry, editing, performance and what you don't see (but your mind thinks you do) to fill in the gaps.
It all works tremendously well - if you haven't seen this in awhile, do yourself a favor and watch it again. If you have never seen it, well...you are in for a treat.
Letter Grade: A+
10 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Bigger isn't always better
Ridley Scott’s Alien prequel Prometheus wasn’t as warmly received as the veteran director had hoped for upon its release in 2012. In pitching the film for the coveted 12A market, Scott lost the majority of what made his 1979 masterpiece, rated 18, such an epic adventure.
So, five years on, Scott returns with a follow-up that aims to answer those irritating questions that Prometheus left us with. But is Alien: Covenant a return to form for the series? Or yet another damp squib?
Bound for a remote planet on the far side of the galaxy, crew members (Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride) of the colony ship Covenant discover a distress signal from what they believe to be an uncharted paradise. While there, they meet David (Michael Fassbender), the synthetic survivor of the doomed Prometheus expedition. However, this new mysterious world soon turns dangerous when a hostile alien life-form forces the crew into a deadly fight for survival.
In Covenant, Scott has tried to take the series back to its horror roots. This is a gory and at times difficult film to stomach, but it just isn’t scary. Despite gaining a 15 certification from the BBFC, Covenant feels like Prometheus on steroids – it’s certainly bigger and in many ways better than its predecessor, but it fails to move this ailing franchise in any new direction.
Naturally, character development takes a backseat here, as it does with many films in the genre, but Scott cleverly casts his characters as loving couples, which raises the emotion once the inevitable bloodshed starts to occur.
That cast is most definitely Covenant’s strongest suit. Prometheus had a distinctly unlikeable roster of characters that didn’t gel together. Here, the way they interact is believable and each of the couplings has a degree of chemistry that helps give their deaths some emotional heft.
Katherine Waterston channels Sigourney Weaver to some extent and makes a good leading lady and Danny McBride’s Tennessee is an excellent presence in an against-type performance from the comedian. However, Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of androids Walter and David is exceptional.
To look at, this is by far the best film in the series. Scott has crafted a detailed, haunting world that emits a damp, grey colour palate. The action is expertly shot, but this is to be expected from a director with decades in the industry. Even the Covenant ship itself feels more grounded in reality when compared to the technology of the Prometheus.
Unfortunately, once the remaining crew arrive ‘safely’ back onboard the Mother ship, things start to unravel rapidly. The film takes far too long to land on the uncharted planet meaning that the final act is rushed and this is a real shame considering the middle 45 minutes feature some of the best sequences in the entire series.
It is nice to see our favourite movie extra-terrestrial’s back in the confines of a spaceship, and the CGI used to bring them to life means they move with a fluidity like never before, but there just isn’t enough of it. It needs more Xenomorph.
Elsewhere, Jed Kurzel’s beautiful score lifts the film in its first half, becoming deeply unnerving and claustrophobic in its second. The change in tone is obvious and helps signify the optimism of the crew as they land, compared with the terror as those that remain leave the planet.
Overall, Alien: Covenant improves on Prometheus in the sense that it feels like a true Alien film, rather than a half-baked idea to cash in on the franchise. Unfortunately, a poor final act, a lack of new direction and yet another frustratingly open story means we still may not get the answers we so desperately want until the inevitable sequel arrives in a few years time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/12/bigger-isnt-always-better-alien-covenant-review/
So, five years on, Scott returns with a follow-up that aims to answer those irritating questions that Prometheus left us with. But is Alien: Covenant a return to form for the series? Or yet another damp squib?
Bound for a remote planet on the far side of the galaxy, crew members (Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride) of the colony ship Covenant discover a distress signal from what they believe to be an uncharted paradise. While there, they meet David (Michael Fassbender), the synthetic survivor of the doomed Prometheus expedition. However, this new mysterious world soon turns dangerous when a hostile alien life-form forces the crew into a deadly fight for survival.
In Covenant, Scott has tried to take the series back to its horror roots. This is a gory and at times difficult film to stomach, but it just isn’t scary. Despite gaining a 15 certification from the BBFC, Covenant feels like Prometheus on steroids – it’s certainly bigger and in many ways better than its predecessor, but it fails to move this ailing franchise in any new direction.
Naturally, character development takes a backseat here, as it does with many films in the genre, but Scott cleverly casts his characters as loving couples, which raises the emotion once the inevitable bloodshed starts to occur.
That cast is most definitely Covenant’s strongest suit. Prometheus had a distinctly unlikeable roster of characters that didn’t gel together. Here, the way they interact is believable and each of the couplings has a degree of chemistry that helps give their deaths some emotional heft.
Katherine Waterston channels Sigourney Weaver to some extent and makes a good leading lady and Danny McBride’s Tennessee is an excellent presence in an against-type performance from the comedian. However, Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of androids Walter and David is exceptional.
To look at, this is by far the best film in the series. Scott has crafted a detailed, haunting world that emits a damp, grey colour palate. The action is expertly shot, but this is to be expected from a director with decades in the industry. Even the Covenant ship itself feels more grounded in reality when compared to the technology of the Prometheus.
Unfortunately, once the remaining crew arrive ‘safely’ back onboard the Mother ship, things start to unravel rapidly. The film takes far too long to land on the uncharted planet meaning that the final act is rushed and this is a real shame considering the middle 45 minutes feature some of the best sequences in the entire series.
It is nice to see our favourite movie extra-terrestrial’s back in the confines of a spaceship, and the CGI used to bring them to life means they move with a fluidity like never before, but there just isn’t enough of it. It needs more Xenomorph.
Elsewhere, Jed Kurzel’s beautiful score lifts the film in its first half, becoming deeply unnerving and claustrophobic in its second. The change in tone is obvious and helps signify the optimism of the crew as they land, compared with the terror as those that remain leave the planet.
Overall, Alien: Covenant improves on Prometheus in the sense that it feels like a true Alien film, rather than a half-baked idea to cash in on the franchise. Unfortunately, a poor final act, a lack of new direction and yet another frustratingly open story means we still may not get the answers we so desperately want until the inevitable sequel arrives in a few years time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/12/bigger-isnt-always-better-alien-covenant-review/
Eduardo Sanchez recommended Blade Runner (1982) in Movies (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Last Duel (2021) in Movies
Oct 30, 2021
Doesn't Really Work
With films such as GLADIATOR, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, ROBIN HOOD, EXODUS: GODS AND MONSTERS and the current THE LAST DUEL, Director Ridley Scott is single-handedly trying to keep alive the “Sword and Sandals” genre that was so much en vogue in the Golden Age of Hollywood.
However, he’ll have to do better than THE LAST DUEL to keep the genre going.
Starring Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Adam Driver and Jodi Comer, THE LAST DUEL tells the tale of the…well…Last Duel in France in the 1300’s. The story tells the tale of 2 noblemen, their ups & downs and the accusation of the wife of one of them that the other raped her. The only way to solve the dispute is a duel to the death.
Following the format of such films as RASHOMON (1950) and, more recently, WRATH OF MAN (2021), THE LAST DUEL is told in 4 parts - telling the same story from different perspectives. But, unlike RASHOMON and (surprisingly) WRATH OF MAN which peeled the onion back during each different telling, adding a deeper and richer layer to the story each time, THE LAST DUEL pretty much tells the same story over and over, not really telling it differently and not really adding any layers to the story. You pretty much know before THE LAST DUEL who is innocent, who is guilty and how the duel is going to play out.
So, Director Scott will need to rely on the performances and the look and feel of the film to get the audience hooked and intrigued during this 2 hour and 32 minute epic, but the script (by Nicole Holofcener, Affleck & Damon just isn’t up to the task.
The acting is…fine. Driver fares the best out of the 4 leads - probably because he is the actor most suited for this type of film than the others. Comer’s part is underwritten and she has surprisingly little to do - which brings us to Affleck and Damon. Affleck has the showier role and provides a spark of interest in his limited time on the screen while Damon is dour and serious and trudges through the film - as does the audience.
Director Scott (ALIEN) brings professionalism to the proceedings and accurately depicts the look and feel of the time and stages the duel (and battle scenes) with a trained eye, but the characters/performances did not leave me with anyone to truly root for (or care about) and by the time we got to THE LAST DUEL, I just wanted it to be over.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
However, he’ll have to do better than THE LAST DUEL to keep the genre going.
Starring Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Adam Driver and Jodi Comer, THE LAST DUEL tells the tale of the…well…Last Duel in France in the 1300’s. The story tells the tale of 2 noblemen, their ups & downs and the accusation of the wife of one of them that the other raped her. The only way to solve the dispute is a duel to the death.
Following the format of such films as RASHOMON (1950) and, more recently, WRATH OF MAN (2021), THE LAST DUEL is told in 4 parts - telling the same story from different perspectives. But, unlike RASHOMON and (surprisingly) WRATH OF MAN which peeled the onion back during each different telling, adding a deeper and richer layer to the story each time, THE LAST DUEL pretty much tells the same story over and over, not really telling it differently and not really adding any layers to the story. You pretty much know before THE LAST DUEL who is innocent, who is guilty and how the duel is going to play out.
So, Director Scott will need to rely on the performances and the look and feel of the film to get the audience hooked and intrigued during this 2 hour and 32 minute epic, but the script (by Nicole Holofcener, Affleck & Damon just isn’t up to the task.
The acting is…fine. Driver fares the best out of the 4 leads - probably because he is the actor most suited for this type of film than the others. Comer’s part is underwritten and she has surprisingly little to do - which brings us to Affleck and Damon. Affleck has the showier role and provides a spark of interest in his limited time on the screen while Damon is dour and serious and trudges through the film - as does the audience.
Director Scott (ALIEN) brings professionalism to the proceedings and accurately depicts the look and feel of the time and stages the duel (and battle scenes) with a trained eye, but the characters/performances did not leave me with anyone to truly root for (or care about) and by the time we got to THE LAST DUEL, I just wanted it to be over.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Morgan (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Producer Ridley Scott has teamed with his son Luke for the new
Horror/Suspense film “Morgan” which blends Horror and Suspense in what may
well be a new franchise for FOX.
The film follows an isolated research facility surrounded by trees where
an experiment named Morgan (Anya Taylor-Joy), has had an “incident” which
has caused the parent company to dispatch a troubleshooter named Lee
Weathers (Kate Mara) to evaluate the program.
The cold and no-nonsense Weathers meets some hesitation from the research
team as they see her as a company tool intent on closing their program and
years of research and being unable to see the potential and progress of
their work.
As Weathers and the audience gets to know Morgan, they learn that she is a
genetic creation who became aware and functional at a very early age and
her recent act of violence has her confined to a cage where she listens to
music, plays Chess, and spends her time dreaming of her former visits
outside.
As Morgan is evaluated it appears that there is far more to her than first
appears. The creation is capable of great empathy, wisdom, and
appreciation for beauty, but also has a very dark side, which can appear
out of nowhere.
As the complex study and interactions with Morgan unfold, Lee and the
scientists are faced with a series of difficult decisions that sets things
on a course from which they may not return.
The film takes a while to get up to speed and does not have anything that
viewers have not seen before. I was able to figure out the twists to the
film early on and an incident that is referred to in the film would have
made a far more interesting film than what we were given. Perhaps it is
being saved for a possible prequel because as it currently stands,
“Morgan”, is an interesting if formulaic film that borrows from several
other films.
The funny thing about it is that like “Prometheus” the more I
thought about it, the more questions I had and perhaps like his father,
Scott is using the film to setup a much larger universe and future films.
I only wish there was a bit more to this as the premise though interesting
does not have enough for the versatile and talented cast to do and they
deserved much better.
http://sknr.net/2016/08/29/morgan/
Horror/Suspense film “Morgan” which blends Horror and Suspense in what may
well be a new franchise for FOX.
The film follows an isolated research facility surrounded by trees where
an experiment named Morgan (Anya Taylor-Joy), has had an “incident” which
has caused the parent company to dispatch a troubleshooter named Lee
Weathers (Kate Mara) to evaluate the program.
The cold and no-nonsense Weathers meets some hesitation from the research
team as they see her as a company tool intent on closing their program and
years of research and being unable to see the potential and progress of
their work.
As Weathers and the audience gets to know Morgan, they learn that she is a
genetic creation who became aware and functional at a very early age and
her recent act of violence has her confined to a cage where she listens to
music, plays Chess, and spends her time dreaming of her former visits
outside.
As Morgan is evaluated it appears that there is far more to her than first
appears. The creation is capable of great empathy, wisdom, and
appreciation for beauty, but also has a very dark side, which can appear
out of nowhere.
As the complex study and interactions with Morgan unfold, Lee and the
scientists are faced with a series of difficult decisions that sets things
on a course from which they may not return.
The film takes a while to get up to speed and does not have anything that
viewers have not seen before. I was able to figure out the twists to the
film early on and an incident that is referred to in the film would have
made a far more interesting film than what we were given. Perhaps it is
being saved for a possible prequel because as it currently stands,
“Morgan”, is an interesting if formulaic film that borrows from several
other films.
The funny thing about it is that like “Prometheus” the more I
thought about it, the more questions I had and perhaps like his father,
Scott is using the film to setup a much larger universe and future films.
I only wish there was a bit more to this as the premise though interesting
does not have enough for the versatile and talented cast to do and they
deserved much better.
http://sknr.net/2016/08/29/morgan/
Ross (3284 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Dec 18, 2017
Didn't feel like an Alien film (no suspense) (1 more)
Doesn't repair the bad feelings left by Prometheus
Where Prometheus came kind of close to explaining the origins of the aliens from the original films, it just fell short (see all the well documented plot holes and inconsistencies). Here, Ridley Scott had a chance to remedy that, but instead seems to have decided to keep digging and has promised we'll eventually get there and all will be revealed.
We are led to believe android David has been beavering away, having killed a planet full of Engineers, developing the greatest living being - the xenomorph. So we are led to believe that after killing all the life on the planet he has somehow been implanting these alien embryos into a living host. Erm ... How?
Also, if the classic xenomorph has only now started to develop after being incubated in a human host, how come they were clearly depicted in ancient cave drawings in Alien vs Predator?
Also also, if the facehugger is apparently a more efficient delivery method than air-borne (I don't think it is) how come it takes so much longer in the original films - John Hurt lying with a facehugger on for hours before hatching, where here the whole gestation seems to be minutes, or an hour as the pace of the film requires. The evolution seems to have slowed down between here and Alien. Also the chestburster becomes an instant killing machine rather than being a weak little snake needing to hide out and eat.
The trademark Alien suspense was completely lacking. Nowhere was there the edge of the seat, dark corridors, pipes coming alive or anything. It was more of an action film with little horror aspect in it.
Overall, this film felt like even more of an insult to the original films than Prometheus did. It could well be that this becomes a small part of a masterpiece but it seems very unlikely and feels like a very long way round and poorly delivered.
We are led to believe android David has been beavering away, having killed a planet full of Engineers, developing the greatest living being - the xenomorph. So we are led to believe that after killing all the life on the planet he has somehow been implanting these alien embryos into a living host. Erm ... How?
Also, if the classic xenomorph has only now started to develop after being incubated in a human host, how come they were clearly depicted in ancient cave drawings in Alien vs Predator?
Also also, if the facehugger is apparently a more efficient delivery method than air-borne (I don't think it is) how come it takes so much longer in the original films - John Hurt lying with a facehugger on for hours before hatching, where here the whole gestation seems to be minutes, or an hour as the pace of the film requires. The evolution seems to have slowed down between here and Alien. Also the chestburster becomes an instant killing machine rather than being a weak little snake needing to hide out and eat.
The trademark Alien suspense was completely lacking. Nowhere was there the edge of the seat, dark corridors, pipes coming alive or anything. It was more of an action film with little horror aspect in it.
Overall, this film felt like even more of an insult to the original films than Prometheus did. It could well be that this becomes a small part of a masterpiece but it seems very unlikely and feels like a very long way round and poorly delivered.
Kelly Knows (95 KP) rated White Squall (1996) in Movies
Jul 3, 2019
Skipper Kills All The Waves
The fantastic telling of the true story of the ill-fated Albatross. Sometimes you watch a movie at a young age, and the power of it sticks with you well into adulthood. White Squall is such a movie for me, and I imagine, many others. A sailor once, and a sailor someday to be, my father and I first watched this movie together when I was a youngster. Those silvered memories can be tarnished if a movie doesn't age well. Not the case with White Squall. Jeff Bridges is a powerhouse as the indomitable Skipper. You will instantly become caught up in the story of these young men learning what it means to indeed be called a man, especially on the sea. Some of the tropes are clunky, but merely a product of the time. You still buy in to the plot with little to no eye rolling. The archetypes of the characters run from Oscar level to 2D flat, but with a main cast of over a dozen, that is to be expected. Again, Jeff Bridges is amazing and more than carries the slack, performance wise. Parents be warned, this is based on a tragedy at sea. Do the math on that one, and adjust accordingly for the kids. The plot is fairly tame for the first half of the movie. The reason this movie gets high marks from me is the incredible direction from Ridley Scott, and the powerhouse sea visuals. The effects department really went to town on this one. You can feel the fury of the ocean, for she is a fickle mistress. They even used a full-scale mock-up of the ship in a horizon tank. Google that. It's awesome. With an amazing story, cast, score, all the above, this movie will always be the perfect with side of popcorn and a comfy recliner.
Crumble Zone
Games and Entertainment
App
Crash comets! Blow up meteoroids! Shatter and smash menacing asteroids with powerful weapons! Use a...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Pirates! An Adventure With Scientists (2012) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Ardman Animation returned to the big screen in 2012 with this adaptation of the Children novel series, The Pirates!.
After building model sets in order to plan out a CGI animation similar to their 2011 Arthur Christmas, they quickly decided to return to their roots and this 3-D adventure was filmed as a stop-motion movie and is much the better for it.
The story itself, whilst following real life characters such as Queen Victoria and Charles Darwin, is pure, adulterated fiction, not quite from the school of Ridley Scott in which he claims to be making historical epics whilst taking liberties, I grant you, but still, I’m still having to explain to my 5 year old daughter that Queen Victoria was a super villain as portrayed here! We follow a crew of Pirates, lead by The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) as he attempts to win the converted pirate of the year but to no avail.
After an encounter with Charles Darwin (David Tennent), he learns that the ships “parrot”, Polly, is in fact a thought to be extinct Dodo and the pair along with his crew, return to England in order to win Scientist Of The Year as well. But Queen Victoria wants the bird, in order to eat it with other world leaders who gather to taste rarest cuisine.
My main issue with this film is that Victoria is presented a villain and this is now how my 5 year old daughter, who loves this film by the way, now looks upon as a baddie! But other than that this is a witty film built on wit. Every frame contains a joke of some kind, whether it be in the background, audible or part of the action.
Ardman’s style is unmistakable and quintessentially British and I suspect that whilst some international audiences will find this quaint, it will probably be lost on many.
But this is an underrated adventure, with lovable characters, villains and all told at a good pace.
Not something to be used for your history homework but still and enjoyable romp none the less.
After building model sets in order to plan out a CGI animation similar to their 2011 Arthur Christmas, they quickly decided to return to their roots and this 3-D adventure was filmed as a stop-motion movie and is much the better for it.
The story itself, whilst following real life characters such as Queen Victoria and Charles Darwin, is pure, adulterated fiction, not quite from the school of Ridley Scott in which he claims to be making historical epics whilst taking liberties, I grant you, but still, I’m still having to explain to my 5 year old daughter that Queen Victoria was a super villain as portrayed here! We follow a crew of Pirates, lead by The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) as he attempts to win the converted pirate of the year but to no avail.
After an encounter with Charles Darwin (David Tennent), he learns that the ships “parrot”, Polly, is in fact a thought to be extinct Dodo and the pair along with his crew, return to England in order to win Scientist Of The Year as well. But Queen Victoria wants the bird, in order to eat it with other world leaders who gather to taste rarest cuisine.
My main issue with this film is that Victoria is presented a villain and this is now how my 5 year old daughter, who loves this film by the way, now looks upon as a baddie! But other than that this is a witty film built on wit. Every frame contains a joke of some kind, whether it be in the background, audible or part of the action.
Ardman’s style is unmistakable and quintessentially British and I suspect that whilst some international audiences will find this quaint, it will probably be lost on many.
But this is an underrated adventure, with lovable characters, villains and all told at a good pace.
Not something to be used for your history homework but still and enjoyable romp none the less.
Lee Richmond (19 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Mar 2, 2019
The key to the future is finally unearthed.
I must admit, my hopes where not high. Since 2012 I have witnessed Ridley Scott wiping his arse on his past glory with the ever worsening Alien Prequels. I hated Prometheus and the less said about Alien Covenant the better. Not only that but did Blade Runner really need a sequel? I was of the strong belief that it did not. The original was a beautifully told, self contained flick with a strong start, middle and end. Throw in to the mix the fact that generally a movie sequel that appears a few decades after the original is rarely as good as what came before. I'm talking about you Indiana Jones, Dumb and Dumber and so on..
Taking that all into account I sat down to watch Blade Runner 2049 with the most open mind I could muster and as the end credits rolled the only thought in my sci-fi frazzled head was "holy shit what a movie"..
I loved it. Not just liked it. Not just found it to be ok (which was about all I had hoped for). I fucking loved it. My wife found it slow and eventually wandered off for a bath but I loved it. I loved the visuals that burst forth from the screen and penetrated my brain through my eyeballs. The story was equally as compelling as the original. Ryan Gosling was great. Harrison Ford was great. The nods to the original all great and never sickly nostalgic.
I can honestly say that I have never been so happy to be wrong. Although there is a 30+ year gap between both films I didn't feel that the special effects (although stunning here) did anything to spoil those of the original. Hopefully this movie has taught me to be more open minded but somehow I imagine I will always be this cynical old bastard that those who know me have come to love or loathe.
If you haven't seen this film yet, or if like me you're expecting the worst, my advice would be "stop being an arse and enjoy the spectacle and dare I say masterpiece? That Blade Runner 2049 truly is".
Taking that all into account I sat down to watch Blade Runner 2049 with the most open mind I could muster and as the end credits rolled the only thought in my sci-fi frazzled head was "holy shit what a movie"..
I loved it. Not just liked it. Not just found it to be ok (which was about all I had hoped for). I fucking loved it. My wife found it slow and eventually wandered off for a bath but I loved it. I loved the visuals that burst forth from the screen and penetrated my brain through my eyeballs. The story was equally as compelling as the original. Ryan Gosling was great. Harrison Ford was great. The nods to the original all great and never sickly nostalgic.
I can honestly say that I have never been so happy to be wrong. Although there is a 30+ year gap between both films I didn't feel that the special effects (although stunning here) did anything to spoil those of the original. Hopefully this movie has taught me to be more open minded but somehow I imagine I will always be this cynical old bastard that those who know me have come to love or loathe.
If you haven't seen this film yet, or if like me you're expecting the worst, my advice would be "stop being an arse and enjoy the spectacle and dare I say masterpiece? That Blade Runner 2049 truly is".