Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Kubo and the Two Strings (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
If you must blink, do it now” or you might miss any number of details the
beautifully animated film, Kubo and the Two Strings, has to offer. Our
culturally rich journey begins with Kubo (Art Parkinson) and his mother
fleeing from his evil grandfather, the Moon King (Ralph Fiennes), after he
leaves Kubo with only one eye. Soon they settle in a cave where Kubo builds
a community around himself in a nearby Japanese village by using his
talents as a storyteller to charm the town’s people. With his stack of
origami papers and his shamisen that brings them to life he weaves tales of
Hanzo the Samurai. Soon though the danger his mother has tried so valiantly
to hide him from finds him and the real magic begins.
After he inadvertently summons an evil spirit from the past, Kubo is lead
on a quest by a monkey (Charlize Theron) to the far lands to recover three
pieces of a magical suit of armor. On their journey they find companionship
with a giant beetle (Matthew McConaughey) that they learn once belonged to
Kubo’s father’s army. The three are plagued by appearances from his aunts
(Rooney Mara) who try their best to keep Kubo from fulfilling his quest. In
the end Kubo is faced with having to choose immortality or to stay human
which we learn has a kind of magic all in its own.
Though I found parts of the film a bit dark for younger viewers it seems it
is a theme of the animated film studio Laika (Coraline, ParaNorman). There
was some comic relief through the banter of Charlize Theron (monkey) and
Mathew McConaughey (beetle) but the movie always circled backed to a more
serious tone. I also felt it could have done a better job of giving us a
back story about how Kubo comes to posses his magical items (origami papers
and his shamisen) and it glossed over some important details, like why his
mother is so fragile after they reach the cave, which we are left to assume
for ourselves. Kubo does however emphasize the power of our memories and
how important stories become in telling what one holds in his or her heart.
Kubo is thoughtful and weaves a story of how family shapes us but how in
the end we must forge our own path.
beautifully animated film, Kubo and the Two Strings, has to offer. Our
culturally rich journey begins with Kubo (Art Parkinson) and his mother
fleeing from his evil grandfather, the Moon King (Ralph Fiennes), after he
leaves Kubo with only one eye. Soon they settle in a cave where Kubo builds
a community around himself in a nearby Japanese village by using his
talents as a storyteller to charm the town’s people. With his stack of
origami papers and his shamisen that brings them to life he weaves tales of
Hanzo the Samurai. Soon though the danger his mother has tried so valiantly
to hide him from finds him and the real magic begins.
After he inadvertently summons an evil spirit from the past, Kubo is lead
on a quest by a monkey (Charlize Theron) to the far lands to recover three
pieces of a magical suit of armor. On their journey they find companionship
with a giant beetle (Matthew McConaughey) that they learn once belonged to
Kubo’s father’s army. The three are plagued by appearances from his aunts
(Rooney Mara) who try their best to keep Kubo from fulfilling his quest. In
the end Kubo is faced with having to choose immortality or to stay human
which we learn has a kind of magic all in its own.
Though I found parts of the film a bit dark for younger viewers it seems it
is a theme of the animated film studio Laika (Coraline, ParaNorman). There
was some comic relief through the banter of Charlize Theron (monkey) and
Mathew McConaughey (beetle) but the movie always circled backed to a more
serious tone. I also felt it could have done a better job of giving us a
back story about how Kubo comes to posses his magical items (origami papers
and his shamisen) and it glossed over some important details, like why his
mother is so fragile after they reach the cave, which we are left to assume
for ourselves. Kubo does however emphasize the power of our memories and
how important stories become in telling what one holds in his or her heart.
Kubo is thoughtful and weaves a story of how family shapes us but how in
the end we must forge our own path.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Nightmare Alley (2021) in Movies
Dec 2, 2021
Stanton Carlisle (Bradley Cooper); is a man trying to get by in late 1930s America in the new film “Nightmare Alley”. Our first introduction to Stanton is less than flattering and he soon finds himself employed at a Carnival after coming upon it by chance.
The eager Stanton is given advice and tools of the trade by his boss Clem (Willem Dafoe) as well as the mystic Zeena (Toni Collette) and Stanton eagerly wants to get ahead. While striking a friendship with fellow employee Molly (Rooney Mara); Stanton learns that Zeena’s older and alcoholic husband has a skill from a former act where he learns to read people and use verbal cues to appear to have the power of clairvoyance.
Eventually, Stanton seeks bigger opportunities and leaves with Molly for the city where they in time develop a successful act that offers them two shows a night at a fancy hotel and some of the finer things in life.
Unwilling to be content with what he has; Stanton becomes involved with a Psychologist named Lilith (Cate Blanchett) and uses her knowledge to set up higher-profile marks who will pay well for his supposed abilities and in doing so; sets a dangerous chain of events into motion.
The film is based on the 1946 book of the same name and an earlier 1947 film, and while it does an amazing job with the visuals and moody atmosphere of the era; it is a very long and slowly-paced film. The movie is over 2.5 hours long and comes across as overly long and self-indulgent as Director Guillermo del Toro could easily have shaved 30-45 minutes from the film and told the story without losing much.
The cast and performances are very good but a slow-paced and dour film is not an ideal way to spend 2.5 hours at the movies no matter how much it has going for it. The movie does have some good points but I think it will do much better on streaming and home video where audiences can pause and take a break.
If you are a fan of the Noir style of old; then this may be just what you are looking for, but I think it should have been so much more.
3.5 stars out of 5
The eager Stanton is given advice and tools of the trade by his boss Clem (Willem Dafoe) as well as the mystic Zeena (Toni Collette) and Stanton eagerly wants to get ahead. While striking a friendship with fellow employee Molly (Rooney Mara); Stanton learns that Zeena’s older and alcoholic husband has a skill from a former act where he learns to read people and use verbal cues to appear to have the power of clairvoyance.
Eventually, Stanton seeks bigger opportunities and leaves with Molly for the city where they in time develop a successful act that offers them two shows a night at a fancy hotel and some of the finer things in life.
Unwilling to be content with what he has; Stanton becomes involved with a Psychologist named Lilith (Cate Blanchett) and uses her knowledge to set up higher-profile marks who will pay well for his supposed abilities and in doing so; sets a dangerous chain of events into motion.
The film is based on the 1946 book of the same name and an earlier 1947 film, and while it does an amazing job with the visuals and moody atmosphere of the era; it is a very long and slowly-paced film. The movie is over 2.5 hours long and comes across as overly long and self-indulgent as Director Guillermo del Toro could easily have shaved 30-45 minutes from the film and told the story without losing much.
The cast and performances are very good but a slow-paced and dour film is not an ideal way to spend 2.5 hours at the movies no matter how much it has going for it. The movie does have some good points but I think it will do much better on streaming and home video where audiences can pause and take a break.
If you are a fan of the Noir style of old; then this may be just what you are looking for, but I think it should have been so much more.
3.5 stars out of 5
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the magic? Where's the sparkle?
The mesmerising story of Peter Pan has been told by numerous directors, playwrights and novelists over the years with Disney’s brilliant animation being one of the highlights in a series of standout moments.
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I had mixed emotions when I first saw the trailer for Pan. The story of Peter Pan was one of my all time favorites growing up. Then Steven Spielberg had to go and get Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman together to bring us Hook, and it solidified the stories of Pan as the best thing since sliced bread for me. So here we have Joe Wright bringing the word put on paper by Jason Fuchs to real life. The story of how Peter came to Neverland; and just how did Captain James T. Hook become so fearful of crocodiles. I was worried, and so I shut it all out. I did not watch any more trailers, clips, or synopsis on the film. But, my curiosity got the best of me, and when we offered the press screening, I jumped at the opportunity to see it. And boy, I am glad I did.
Pan, in case you haven’t figured it out, tells the story of 12-year old orphan Peter (Levi Miller), who is abducted from his orphanage, along with many other little boy orphans, by pirates from Neverland. When they bring Peter to Neverland, he is forced to work in the mines, serving the evil pirate overlord, Black Beard (Hugh Jackman, no seriously. It totally doesn’t even look like him.). It’s not long before some very unusual things start happening to him, and he, along with James T. Hook (Garrett Hedlund), escape the mines to find the natives and Princess Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), who helps Peter discover his destiny.
Loaded with stunning visuals and a great soundtrack (including some very recognizable songs in the form of pirate chants), Pan nails it in all the right ways. The visionaries who brought this world to life are amazing, and the creativity in every scene is astounding. It was especially charming that the people behind the film kept in mind that it is a family film. While there is some violence, it is an action movie after all, they applied some very interesting effects and theories to use in place of the gore and blood. I also enjoyed, as weird as this sounds, the brightness of the whole movie. They didn’t try to make the film a dark tale of gritty origins. The feel of the story has the same notes of brightness that I remember from the Disney film as a kid, to even Hook in my later years.
And the likenesses do not stop there. It was very fun, and a bit nostalgic, to catch the references and clues of what’s to come. You see things that influence the characters to become who we know and love. And true to the rumors/stories I heard of the background of the beloved Peter Pan tale, Captain Hook and Peter began their time together as friends. The film sets out to do what it was meant to do… tell the story of how Peter and Captain Hook became who they were. But, not all is revealed in this film. When the film is over, and you’ll wish it weren’t, our beloved hero and villain have a long way to go still. So look forward to more films to come.
The only gripe I had with this movie was the acting. And just one part in general. I felt most of the cast was excellent. Jackman portrayed a great, and zany by the standards of the Paniverse (hoping to coin a new term here people, #paniverse), pirate… czar?! I know I used overlord, but it’s hard to say what he is other than he is the captain of captains. Mara played Tiger Lily oh so very well, and Miller held his own right up there with the bigger names. But it was Hedlund I had issue with. His portrayal of James Hook was more reminiscent of Jack Nicholson with elongated words, and an almost creepy like vibe. It’s just not how I imagined him to act, and maybe that is just throwing my perception off. Though, my feeling and view of the portrayal was echoed by my guest at the screening, so there may be something to it. Luckily, my negative view of the acting was not enough to pull me out of the experience, and I was still able to enjoy the movie.
Bottom line. Go see this movie. Take your kids, your partners, your parents, your grandparents, your cousin’s, aunt’s son/daughter… oh wait. That’s you. The point is. It’s definitely worth seeing. The 3D effects were nothing ground breaking, but it would still be worth it to see it in 3D. And this will definitely be in my collection on day 1 of home release.
Pan, in case you haven’t figured it out, tells the story of 12-year old orphan Peter (Levi Miller), who is abducted from his orphanage, along with many other little boy orphans, by pirates from Neverland. When they bring Peter to Neverland, he is forced to work in the mines, serving the evil pirate overlord, Black Beard (Hugh Jackman, no seriously. It totally doesn’t even look like him.). It’s not long before some very unusual things start happening to him, and he, along with James T. Hook (Garrett Hedlund), escape the mines to find the natives and Princess Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), who helps Peter discover his destiny.
Loaded with stunning visuals and a great soundtrack (including some very recognizable songs in the form of pirate chants), Pan nails it in all the right ways. The visionaries who brought this world to life are amazing, and the creativity in every scene is astounding. It was especially charming that the people behind the film kept in mind that it is a family film. While there is some violence, it is an action movie after all, they applied some very interesting effects and theories to use in place of the gore and blood. I also enjoyed, as weird as this sounds, the brightness of the whole movie. They didn’t try to make the film a dark tale of gritty origins. The feel of the story has the same notes of brightness that I remember from the Disney film as a kid, to even Hook in my later years.
And the likenesses do not stop there. It was very fun, and a bit nostalgic, to catch the references and clues of what’s to come. You see things that influence the characters to become who we know and love. And true to the rumors/stories I heard of the background of the beloved Peter Pan tale, Captain Hook and Peter began their time together as friends. The film sets out to do what it was meant to do… tell the story of how Peter and Captain Hook became who they were. But, not all is revealed in this film. When the film is over, and you’ll wish it weren’t, our beloved hero and villain have a long way to go still. So look forward to more films to come.
The only gripe I had with this movie was the acting. And just one part in general. I felt most of the cast was excellent. Jackman portrayed a great, and zany by the standards of the Paniverse (hoping to coin a new term here people, #paniverse), pirate… czar?! I know I used overlord, but it’s hard to say what he is other than he is the captain of captains. Mara played Tiger Lily oh so very well, and Miller held his own right up there with the bigger names. But it was Hedlund I had issue with. His portrayal of James Hook was more reminiscent of Jack Nicholson with elongated words, and an almost creepy like vibe. It’s just not how I imagined him to act, and maybe that is just throwing my perception off. Though, my feeling and view of the portrayal was echoed by my guest at the screening, so there may be something to it. Luckily, my negative view of the acting was not enough to pull me out of the experience, and I was still able to enjoy the movie.
Bottom line. Go see this movie. Take your kids, your partners, your parents, your grandparents, your cousin’s, aunt’s son/daughter… oh wait. That’s you. The point is. It’s definitely worth seeing. The 3D effects were nothing ground breaking, but it would still be worth it to see it in 3D. And this will definitely be in my collection on day 1 of home release.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Peter is an orphan during World War II, stuck in a boys home, he believes something is happening and wants to be reunited with his mother, taken to Neverland, he learns that he has an ability unlike anyone else, he just needs to learn to believe in himself. Blackbeard has been taking orphans to help him mine for fairy dust in Neverland, he runs a strict ship which Peter upsets, however this will put Blackbeard closer than ever to getting what he wants. Hook is one of the miners that helps Peter escape, he wants to be free with his own tragic backstory. Tiger Lily has been leading the war against Blackbeard for years now, she knows the secrets to the fairies and now must protect them at all costs.
Performances – Levi Miller as the young Peter is good because he shows us the innocence needed for this film while dealing with the emotional impact his life is having. Hugh Jackman does seem to be having a lot of fun in this role even if he is overacting at times. Garrett Hedlund just can’t catch a break, his performance is solid enough, though it does feel like he just wanted to be the next Han Solo. Rooney Mara again is solid, it looks like a role which meant something to her and will help her take on the bigger roles.
Story – The story is an origin story for Peter Pan and Hook, well it seems to be, Peter is in the human world where he is an orphan taken to Neverland to help fight in a war between the two sides who want control of the fairy dust, he works with Hook which is strange because he is a good guy. The film shows us why Peter never wanted to leave Neverland and just what is meant to him once he learns about his parent’s identity. When we look deeper at the story it does feel like a pretty safe story and by having Peter needing to learn his own identity before going on to be the character we know now. The problem comes from any moment of peril he is in or Hook we know they will make it out of there because we know their story is only just beginning. The additional problem comes from just how Hook is a good guy and doesn’t get given any moments to tease his villainous ways.
Adventure/Fantasy – The adventure side of the film is good because it shows a new life Peter could have away from the war his own reality is involved in, this does take us to the fantasy world of Neverland which only seems to have one unique animal in, but it has magic.
Settings – The film uses the colour tones well, we see the darkness which shows us how bleak Peter’s real-life is, while giving us the bright open world of Neverland to show the hope of a future.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are solid enough without looking as flawless as they should, though the overly ambitious nature to it all doesn’t help.
Scene of the Movie – Hook’s escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not filling enough of the blanks between the time period.
Final Thoughts – This is another cash-in on a franchise which feels overly done, it doesn’t capture the rue magic and only ends up confusing the time between the movies.
Overall: Magicless fantasy film.
Performances – Levi Miller as the young Peter is good because he shows us the innocence needed for this film while dealing with the emotional impact his life is having. Hugh Jackman does seem to be having a lot of fun in this role even if he is overacting at times. Garrett Hedlund just can’t catch a break, his performance is solid enough, though it does feel like he just wanted to be the next Han Solo. Rooney Mara again is solid, it looks like a role which meant something to her and will help her take on the bigger roles.
Story – The story is an origin story for Peter Pan and Hook, well it seems to be, Peter is in the human world where he is an orphan taken to Neverland to help fight in a war between the two sides who want control of the fairy dust, he works with Hook which is strange because he is a good guy. The film shows us why Peter never wanted to leave Neverland and just what is meant to him once he learns about his parent’s identity. When we look deeper at the story it does feel like a pretty safe story and by having Peter needing to learn his own identity before going on to be the character we know now. The problem comes from any moment of peril he is in or Hook we know they will make it out of there because we know their story is only just beginning. The additional problem comes from just how Hook is a good guy and doesn’t get given any moments to tease his villainous ways.
Adventure/Fantasy – The adventure side of the film is good because it shows a new life Peter could have away from the war his own reality is involved in, this does take us to the fantasy world of Neverland which only seems to have one unique animal in, but it has magic.
Settings – The film uses the colour tones well, we see the darkness which shows us how bleak Peter’s real-life is, while giving us the bright open world of Neverland to show the hope of a future.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are solid enough without looking as flawless as they should, though the overly ambitious nature to it all doesn’t help.
Scene of the Movie – Hook’s escape plan.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not filling enough of the blanks between the time period.
Final Thoughts – This is another cash-in on a franchise which feels overly done, it doesn’t capture the rue magic and only ends up confusing the time between the movies.
Overall: Magicless fantasy film.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Nightmare Alley (2021) in Movies
Feb 4, 2022
Sum Does Not Add Up To The Total Of The Parts
If you ever want to understand the meaning of the term “the sum does not equal the total of the parts”, you need to look no further than the latest film from Guillermo Del Toro, the neo-noir thriller, NIGHTMARE ALLEY.
This film looked like it had all the right elements for a fantastic, adult film. A neo-noir thriller with a distinctive period look, helmed by a first rate director and featuring an A-List cast that are (for the most part) perfectly cast in their roles.
So why doesn’t this film rise above ordinary?
Ultimately, it is because this type of film, a neo-noir crime thriller where none of the characters are likeable or are easy to root for, is a tricky tightrope walk and, in this instance, Director del Toro opted to play it safe, focusing on mood and atmosphere, while strapping his talented cast with characters (and, ultimately, performances) that are middle-of-the road.
Bradley Cooper is the right performer in today’s world to play Stanton Carlisle, the drifter that becomes a carney that becomes a a con-man “Mentalist” who is drawn into a sinister plot by the mysterious Dr. Lilith Ritter (Cate Blanchett - also the right performer in today’s world to play this part). These 2 have decent (but not great) chemistry with each other, for you know (they way del Toro has Directed Blanchett’s performance) that she is up to something, thus keeping us at arm’s length.
But I am getting ahead of myself, for that is the 2nd half of this film, I haven’t even touched on the first half - which is part of the issue here as well.
The first hour of this 2 1/2 hour film is all set up as we follow Cooper’s character as he is introduced into a Circus sideshow of the 1940’s - and all of the characters therein. This is an interesting - if kind of slow - setup as we are treated to some interesting character building performances by some pretty terrific actors - Toni Colette, Ron Perlman, David Strathairn and, of course, the always good Willem DaFoe.
Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned Rooney Mara who is sort of the “through-line” between the 2 halves of this film, but her character is so vanilla, that one forgets her character event exists.
But…after an hour of setting up this world and these characters - the film pivots away from this area and goes to a whole different world…and a different plot. It is like a SuperHero Origin film where the first 1/2 of the film is the Origin and the 2nd half is the first adventure of said SuperHero.
And this just doesn’t work all that well in this film (even with a callback at the end), it is jarring and creates 2 different movies, neither of which rises above the average.
I lay the blame for all of this on Director Guillermo del Toro who appeared to be more interested in the look of this film (and the look is AMAZING) and just let the actors act, but not get in the way. The direction is bland, the performances are bland and the plot just doesn’t hold together.
Which is very disappointing, considering what “could have been”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This film looked like it had all the right elements for a fantastic, adult film. A neo-noir thriller with a distinctive period look, helmed by a first rate director and featuring an A-List cast that are (for the most part) perfectly cast in their roles.
So why doesn’t this film rise above ordinary?
Ultimately, it is because this type of film, a neo-noir crime thriller where none of the characters are likeable or are easy to root for, is a tricky tightrope walk and, in this instance, Director del Toro opted to play it safe, focusing on mood and atmosphere, while strapping his talented cast with characters (and, ultimately, performances) that are middle-of-the road.
Bradley Cooper is the right performer in today’s world to play Stanton Carlisle, the drifter that becomes a carney that becomes a a con-man “Mentalist” who is drawn into a sinister plot by the mysterious Dr. Lilith Ritter (Cate Blanchett - also the right performer in today’s world to play this part). These 2 have decent (but not great) chemistry with each other, for you know (they way del Toro has Directed Blanchett’s performance) that she is up to something, thus keeping us at arm’s length.
But I am getting ahead of myself, for that is the 2nd half of this film, I haven’t even touched on the first half - which is part of the issue here as well.
The first hour of this 2 1/2 hour film is all set up as we follow Cooper’s character as he is introduced into a Circus sideshow of the 1940’s - and all of the characters therein. This is an interesting - if kind of slow - setup as we are treated to some interesting character building performances by some pretty terrific actors - Toni Colette, Ron Perlman, David Strathairn and, of course, the always good Willem DaFoe.
Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned Rooney Mara who is sort of the “through-line” between the 2 halves of this film, but her character is so vanilla, that one forgets her character event exists.
But…after an hour of setting up this world and these characters - the film pivots away from this area and goes to a whole different world…and a different plot. It is like a SuperHero Origin film where the first 1/2 of the film is the Origin and the 2nd half is the first adventure of said SuperHero.
And this just doesn’t work all that well in this film (even with a callback at the end), it is jarring and creates 2 different movies, neither of which rises above the average.
I lay the blame for all of this on Director Guillermo del Toro who appeared to be more interested in the look of this film (and the look is AMAZING) and just let the actors act, but not get in the way. The direction is bland, the performances are bland and the plot just doesn’t hold together.
Which is very disappointing, considering what “could have been”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Disappointingly Average
I love The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo series. The Swedish films are excellent and David Fincher’s US adaptation was a decent watch too. Lisbeth Salander is such an iconic and well-written character, so her return to the big screen was met with much anticipation. With a new cast and new story I was looking forward to seeing it, catching a Limitless preview screening a few days before its general UK release. Unfortunately, it didn’t live up to my relatively high expectations.
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lion (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Lost in Train-station.
As January progresses, the quality Oscar films just keep on coming! India’s vibrant and teeming tapestry of life is a natural gift for film-makers, without a word needing to be spoken, and director Garth Davis – in an impressive feature film debut – utilizes that backdrop to the max.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
In a true life story, five-year-old Saroo (Sunny Pawar, in an astonishingly adept child performance) is accidentally separated from his family in the Madhya Pradesh region of Western India and goes on a journey by train of hundreds of miles to Calcutta: a city full of people who don’t even speak his language.
Lost, alone and facing the perils of a street child in a dangerous city, Saroo is eventually adopted by a kindly Australian couple (played by Nicole Kidman (“Before I Go To Sleep“) and David Wenham (Faramir in “The Lord of the Rings”)).
Growing up in a comfortable, loving, but not – ultimately – idyllic home environment, Saroo (now Dev Patel, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) grows up and in his late teens goes to Melbourne University to study Hotel Management (Dev Patel? Hotel Management? What were the odds?!). While there, memories of the past resurface and an obsessive need to trace his Indian origins takes hold, disrupting both his career plans and his relationship with the love of his life Lucy (Rooney Mara, “Carol“). But with a remembered home-town name that doesn’t exist, only hazy memories of the train station he departed from, and thousands and thousands of train stations across India, how could he ever succeed?
India is enormously photogenic and cinematographer Greig Fraser (“Rogue One“, “Foxcatcher“) takes the maximum advantage of that with some memorable and dramatic landscapes: work that has been Oscar nominated. Also Oscar nominated and contributing strongly to the look and feel of the film is a well-judged and effectively used piano score by Volker Bertelmann and Dustin O’Halloran.
In the acting stakes, Dev Patel gives his best ever performance and his Oscar nomination – curiously for Best Supporting actor since, I presume, Sunny Pawar has the most screen time – is very well deserved. A moving performance, particularly at the tearful end of the movie, for which a box of tissues is recommended.
Nicole Kidman, not an actress I have ever hugely warmed to, is excellent here as the fragile adoptive mother, despite having to sport a crazy red curly wig. Another Oscar nomination.
Also worthy of note is young Abhishek Bharate as Saroo’s brother Guddu: the touching chemistry between the thieving young rascals at the start of the movie grounds the whole family relationship that’s sets up the emotional heart of the subsequent quest.
Luke Davies’ adapted screenplay is also Oscar nominated, although perhaps not as deserving to win as some of the other nominees. I would (naively perhaps) assume that adapting a screenplay from a true-life story must be an easier task, since the facts have to speak for themselves. But besides that, while the first half of the film, with the scenes in India, is exceptionally good, the Australian section became a more patchy with the motivations of Saroo’s actions and the impact they have on his adoptive family not feeling completely fleshed out.
While I’m sure being a street urchin in Calcutta in the mid-80’s was a horribly difficult and perilous existence, the screenplay paints the sense that that almost EVERY male in the city is either a pedophile or hopelessly corrupt: something that if I was a Calcutta resident I would likely take offence to.
However, this is a hugely involving and enjoyable movie, and a “Best Film” rounds off the impressive haul of six Oscar nominations. You might be cynical and view the subject matter as being comfortable Oscar-bait… but you can hardly argue about the absolute quality of the film-making on show here.
By the way, if you are curious as to where the title of the film comes from, you need to wait until the end titles: a masterly touch that I really liked!
The end titles also lay out the fact that the perils of street kids in India is still real and present, and the film is supporting charitable work to help. If you were moved by the film (as I was) you can make a donation at http://lionmovie.com (as I did)!
Highly recommended.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy (Rooney Mara) thinks she's suffering from an average case of nightmares that are causing her to lose sleep. A burned man with blades on his fingers haunts her dreams. She doesn't think much of it until her friends start getting picked off one by one while they sleep and are dreaming of the same man. Something happened during their childhood that connects them to this man that their parents are trying to cover up. As far as anyone else is concerned, Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley) never existed. What their parents refuse to believe is that Freddy exists in the dreams of their children causing them to remember their past and kill them. Now it's up to Nancy and her friend Quentin (Kyle Gallner) to figure out how the pieces of the puzzle fit before they become Freddy's next victims.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is one of the most beloved horror classics of all time. The original introduced us to Fred Krueger who would later be known as "Freddy" and evolve into one of the most popular icons in the horror genre. 26 years later, the film has been remade and Jackie Earle Haley has replaced Robert Englund as the dream-stalking child killer. Fans of the original franchise were left wondering if there was a slight chance of this being somewhat decent and if Haley's version of Freddy wouldn't be cringeworthy. Truth be told, the film may not be as bad as you're expecting.
This remake rests on the shoulders of Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If die hard horror fans can get past constantly comparing him to Englund, then they'll realize that Haley doesn't do a bad job. His Rorschach voice was actually a great choice for the role as it seemed to reverberate off the walls of the theater throughout the entire film. His stalking methods were a bit different than expected. Haley's Freddy doesn't talk as much as Englund's and seems to be off-screen just as often as he is on. The wisecracking has been toned way down, as well, but he does manage to squeeze in, "How's this for a wet dream?" Haley's version of Freddy is angry. He is PISSED that these kids squealed on him and he wants them to pay, but wants to dish out his revenge in a way that lets him have fun at the same time. His body language speaks volumes, too. His bladed fingers itch in anticipation of the kill. In fact, it seems like his fingers talk more than he does. The realistic burn victim route with the make-up seems like it's just as much a blessing as it is a curse. Freddy's eyes look really weird. They're too small and beady. He looks like kind of like a monkey when you do catch a full glimpse of his face. That's a shame, too. Since everything else looks pretty fantastic.
The storyline seems to basically follow the same path as the original film, but it probably should have skipped some of the new detours it makes along the way. Kris dreams of herself as a child with bloody claw marks across her torso and then finds the same dress with four gashes in her attic, but she doesn't have any scars from this rather severe injury she obtained when she was five? Even if the explanation was she had some sort of cosmetic surgery, wouldn't that be just as traumatic for a child? The CG version of the scene where we see Freddy coming out of the wall in the remake is probably the weakest in the entire film. The scene in the original is one of its most memorable visuals. In the remake, it's botched thanks to crummy CG. Even in comparison to the rest of the CG in the film, it doesn't measure up. It's the one scene that I wasn't able to look past. However, the micronaps idea is truly fantastic for the film. That was one thing I highly approved of going into it. The way that is pulled off is one of the highlights of the remake. It's one of those ideas that fits so perfectly, you're surprised it wasn't in the original film. Fred Krueger's background is where the film really goes into its own territory though. Fred was a gardener who lived in the basement of Badham Pre-School and the children were his life. He apparently took them to his "cave" where they emerged with scratches on their bodies. The parents of Elm Street don't bother trying to inform the police. They just burn Krueger alive as retribution to what he did to their children. While the original franchise never really came right out and said that Freddy was a child molester, it always strongly hinted at it. The remake seems to basically come right out and say that he is one without actually saying it. The evidence they find in his "cave" solidifies that fact. Maybe they felt like they needed to do that since this is such a "serious" version of Freddy...? Certain things just don't add up in the long run. Quentin and Nancy are driving in a car at one point and Quentin has a micronap where he sees Freddy in front of the car. He swerves out of the way to avoid hitting him and winds up in this boggy marsh off the side of the road. The question is WHY would you swerve out of the way of a man who was trying to kill you?
The kills seem to get more gruesome as the film goes on. It's a nice route to go, really. The last kill of the film is probably the one you'll remember most. I wasn't too incredibly attached to Nancy in the original film, but Rooney Mara's version was really boring. You don't care about what happens to her at all. You're more interested in what happens to her friends. She's an art student that can't sleep and is connected to Freddy somehow. That's pretty much all that's revealed. Why should we care that she may die?
A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly has its misfires when it comes to special effects and its storyline, but the problems it has aren't really any different than the problems most modern day horror movies have. At least the acting wasn't terrible like in an 80s slasher and the CG effects aren't incredibly outdated or anything. The film was designed to appeal to the demographic going to movie theaters to see a horror movie in 2010 and it seems to do that very well. Sure, it probably doesn't live up to the original film, but not many remakes do. If people see this without seeing the original film first, they'll probably love the remake. For original Freddy fans though, it'll probably come down to Haley's portrayal of Freddy. If you can see the film without any expectations or with finally accepting the fact that Robert Englund is no longer Freddy, it actually isn't quite as terrible as you may have originally thought. Strangely enough, it's even entertaining at times. Go figure.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.