Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) in Movies
Mar 28, 2020
Holds up well - worth your time
I remember really liking THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON when it first was released in 2011. It made me a fan of Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchette, Tilda Swinton, Taraji P. Henson, Jared Harris and Director David Fincher - and I defended this film to those that did not have as high an opinion of this movie than I did. So when my daughter recommended we re-watch this film (a film I haven't watched in 5 or 6 years), I was excited to revisit it.
And...I'm glad I did...for I re-fell in love with the portions of the film that I remembered fondly while I was also able to see the flaws (mostly in pacing) that drops this film down a peg.
Based on the short story by F. Scott Fitgerald, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON tells the tale of a man who ages backwards. His life is chronicled from his birth (right after the "Great War" ended in the 1919) and follows right up to his death.
As played by Brad Pitt in an Oscar nominated turn, the titular character is earnest, honest, somewhat naive and (as he gets younger) very attractive to look at. I've been a fan of Pitt's acting since the days of FIGHT CLUB and 12 MONKEYS (and think he deserved his Oscar for ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD) and he does not disappoint in this film, especially since he has quite a few strong performers to play against (even while under heavy make-up).
Jared Harris, Taraji P. Henson (in an Oscar nominated performance) and Mahershala Ali all bring strong, winning performances but is the performances of 2 strong actresses that drew my attention to them from this point forward. Tilda Swinton (SNOWPIERCER) brings a sense of longing to her portrayal of a woman that Benjamin has a brief affair with. Their scenes together are touching and poignant with a sense of sadness that had me rooting for Swinton's character throughout.
But, it is the appearance of Cate Blanchette (THOR: RAGNAROK) that elevates this film for me. I had been a fan of Blanchette's since her Oscar winning role of Katherine Hepburn in THE AVIATOR, but this performance raised her abilities in my eyes and I eagerly await everything that she is going to appear in (including CAROL, a film that I loathe).
Director David Fincher (Se7EN, FIGHT CLUB) was also Oscar nominated for his work in this film and he blends a lifelong love story with events of the day while mixing in some wonderful CGI that helps age (or de-age) Benjamin as the film unfolds. This film, for me, was a departure for Fincher who I came to admire for his trippy films, but he brings a human-ness to the proceedings that helps ground the fantastical into reality.
Upon this viewing, I did find that this film does drag a bit at times - it is as if Fincher (and the cast) fell so in love with the characters and the scenes, that they lose track of the pacing, letting the film bog down from time to time. The film runs 2 hours and 46 minutes...and I think I could help find spots to trim about 20 minutes out of it.
The film did win in 3 of the 13 categories it was Oscar nominated in (it was nominated for BEST FILM, but did not win that award). The Oscar wins were all for special effects of some sort - and I kept looking to see if I could spot the tricks and Special FX in the film - and I could not. A good sign that this film is holding up 9 years later.
Take a trip through time (backwards) with Benjamin Button, it's is worth it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 (and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...I'm glad I did...for I re-fell in love with the portions of the film that I remembered fondly while I was also able to see the flaws (mostly in pacing) that drops this film down a peg.
Based on the short story by F. Scott Fitgerald, THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON tells the tale of a man who ages backwards. His life is chronicled from his birth (right after the "Great War" ended in the 1919) and follows right up to his death.
As played by Brad Pitt in an Oscar nominated turn, the titular character is earnest, honest, somewhat naive and (as he gets younger) very attractive to look at. I've been a fan of Pitt's acting since the days of FIGHT CLUB and 12 MONKEYS (and think he deserved his Oscar for ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD) and he does not disappoint in this film, especially since he has quite a few strong performers to play against (even while under heavy make-up).
Jared Harris, Taraji P. Henson (in an Oscar nominated performance) and Mahershala Ali all bring strong, winning performances but is the performances of 2 strong actresses that drew my attention to them from this point forward. Tilda Swinton (SNOWPIERCER) brings a sense of longing to her portrayal of a woman that Benjamin has a brief affair with. Their scenes together are touching and poignant with a sense of sadness that had me rooting for Swinton's character throughout.
But, it is the appearance of Cate Blanchette (THOR: RAGNAROK) that elevates this film for me. I had been a fan of Blanchette's since her Oscar winning role of Katherine Hepburn in THE AVIATOR, but this performance raised her abilities in my eyes and I eagerly await everything that she is going to appear in (including CAROL, a film that I loathe).
Director David Fincher (Se7EN, FIGHT CLUB) was also Oscar nominated for his work in this film and he blends a lifelong love story with events of the day while mixing in some wonderful CGI that helps age (or de-age) Benjamin as the film unfolds. This film, for me, was a departure for Fincher who I came to admire for his trippy films, but he brings a human-ness to the proceedings that helps ground the fantastical into reality.
Upon this viewing, I did find that this film does drag a bit at times - it is as if Fincher (and the cast) fell so in love with the characters and the scenes, that they lose track of the pacing, letting the film bog down from time to time. The film runs 2 hours and 46 minutes...and I think I could help find spots to trim about 20 minutes out of it.
The film did win in 3 of the 13 categories it was Oscar nominated in (it was nominated for BEST FILM, but did not win that award). The Oscar wins were all for special effects of some sort - and I kept looking to see if I could spot the tricks and Special FX in the film - and I could not. A good sign that this film is holding up 9 years later.
Take a trip through time (backwards) with Benjamin Button, it's is worth it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 (and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
The Elements by Theodore Gray
Book and Education
App
Of all the periodic table apps, there is only one which Stephen Fry described as “Alone worth the...
Dream of Pixels
Games and Entertainment
App
A very beautiful falling blocks puzzle game. "Best iPhone and iPad Games of 2012: Puzzle"...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Jan 9, 2021
Elisabeth Moss - excellent performance (1 more)
Slowly creeping tension - clever camera work
Have you seen "The Invisible Man"?
Cecilia Kass (Elisabeth Moss) is trapped in a highly controlling and violent relationship with technology mogul Adrian Griffin (Oliver Jackson-Cohen). Escaping from his fortress-like home, she lives in fear of his retribution. So she is much relieved, if a little surprised, at the report of his suicide. Now living with old friend James Lanier (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid), Cecilia can finally start to relax. But as strange things start to happen, is the ghost of Griffin back to haunt her? Or is it really all in her rapidly disintegrating mind, as her sister Emily (Harriet Dyer) and James suspect?
Australian writer/director Leigh Whannell is famous as the writer behind the "Saw" and "Insidious" franchises. So he knows a thing or two about crafting horror movies. And in this Blumhouse production, after a clever attention-grabbing opening, he really takes his time in building an understanding of Cecilia's mental state. When things start to happen, they happen so stealthily that I needed to hit the rewind button a couple of times (no cinema experience for this one I'm afraid). Cinematographer Stefan Duscio keeps slowly panning away from Cecilia across the room to show empty corridors before slowly panning back again. It's superbly effective and was comprehensively creeping me out!
When the set action pieces do occur then they are satisfactorily exciting, albeit wildly implausible. I did not see some of the "Surprises" coming, making them jolt-worthy. And the denouement really delivered for me, reminiscent of Hitchcock's style.
Now most famous for "Mad Men" and "The Handmaids Tale" on TV, Elisabeth Moss has delivered a range of impressive film performances including in "High Rise" and - as most closely related to this role - in "Girl, Interrupted" as mental patient Lisa. It's a star turn, no doubt about it.
This movie was intended by Universal to be part of the "Dark Universe" series. But the Tom Cruise flop "The Mummy" unfortunately put paid to that. Which is a great shame. If they'd started with this one, then they might have had a hit on their hands. With a post-credits "monkey" (there isn't one in this movie by the way) they could have lined up into the follow-up movie and started the ball rolling.
It's a rollicking action flick that had my attention throughout. However, the initial question it poses - haunting, 'all in the mind' or something else - gets clarified a little too early for me (and - note - is spoiled by the trailer), so the movie falls short of being a classic for that reason.
There's one aspect of the movie that really irritated me. And that is that there was no credit whatsoever for the idea of H.G. Wells that originated this story. There's a discussion of that here: since Wells died in 1946, his copyright will have expired on his works 70 years later. This is definitely NOT a retelling of his story, but in reusing the novel's title it would seem at least 'polite' to include a "Based on an idea by H.G. Wells" in the credits somewhere.
All in all, this is still a bit of a B-movie, but its a bloody good one! Utterly preposterous at times, and with decision-making that would feel at home within the Trump presidency, it's an entertaining rollercoaster of a movie. Definitely comes with a "recommended" from me and I'll look forward to a re-watch at some point.
For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/01/09/have-you-seen-the-invisible-man/ .
Australian writer/director Leigh Whannell is famous as the writer behind the "Saw" and "Insidious" franchises. So he knows a thing or two about crafting horror movies. And in this Blumhouse production, after a clever attention-grabbing opening, he really takes his time in building an understanding of Cecilia's mental state. When things start to happen, they happen so stealthily that I needed to hit the rewind button a couple of times (no cinema experience for this one I'm afraid). Cinematographer Stefan Duscio keeps slowly panning away from Cecilia across the room to show empty corridors before slowly panning back again. It's superbly effective and was comprehensively creeping me out!
When the set action pieces do occur then they are satisfactorily exciting, albeit wildly implausible. I did not see some of the "Surprises" coming, making them jolt-worthy. And the denouement really delivered for me, reminiscent of Hitchcock's style.
Now most famous for "Mad Men" and "The Handmaids Tale" on TV, Elisabeth Moss has delivered a range of impressive film performances including in "High Rise" and - as most closely related to this role - in "Girl, Interrupted" as mental patient Lisa. It's a star turn, no doubt about it.
This movie was intended by Universal to be part of the "Dark Universe" series. But the Tom Cruise flop "The Mummy" unfortunately put paid to that. Which is a great shame. If they'd started with this one, then they might have had a hit on their hands. With a post-credits "monkey" (there isn't one in this movie by the way) they could have lined up into the follow-up movie and started the ball rolling.
It's a rollicking action flick that had my attention throughout. However, the initial question it poses - haunting, 'all in the mind' or something else - gets clarified a little too early for me (and - note - is spoiled by the trailer), so the movie falls short of being a classic for that reason.
There's one aspect of the movie that really irritated me. And that is that there was no credit whatsoever for the idea of H.G. Wells that originated this story. There's a discussion of that here: since Wells died in 1946, his copyright will have expired on his works 70 years later. This is definitely NOT a retelling of his story, but in reusing the novel's title it would seem at least 'polite' to include a "Based on an idea by H.G. Wells" in the credits somewhere.
All in all, this is still a bit of a B-movie, but its a bloody good one! Utterly preposterous at times, and with decision-making that would feel at home within the Trump presidency, it's an entertaining rollercoaster of a movie. Definitely comes with a "recommended" from me and I'll look forward to a re-watch at some point.
For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/01/09/have-you-seen-the-invisible-man/ .
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
My relationship with Laurel & Hardy is a tentative one. I do enjoy their short films, full of ingenuity and genuinely funny moments. But, they’d be down the list a bit for me on the greatest black and white comedy stars – Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, then the Marx Brothers maybe, then the slapstick duo next, maybe. It’s not that I don’t think they are great! They are, they definitely are. I just can’t sit down and take to much of them at once. Maybe because their schtick is very stagey, vaudevillian even, rather than cinematic. And that is because they were primary stage actors and clowns. Not necessarily in that order.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
Adobe Photoshop Fix
Photo & Video and Productivity
App
Adobe Photoshop Fix enables powerful, yet easy image retouching and restoration on your iPad or...
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Falling Short in Books
Oct 2, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I first found out about Falling Short, written by Lex Coulton, the blurb promised to be ''fresh, funny and life-affirming''. I am sorry, but no. That is not correct. This book was none of those things. It wasn’t bad at all, but I would prefer describing it as a slow-paced, and confusingly complex in an unsatisfying way.
About the book:
Frances Pilgrim’s father went missing when she was five, and ever since all sorts of things have been going astray: car keys, promotions, a series of underwhelming and unsuitable boyfriends . . . Now here she is, thirty-bloody-nine, teaching Shakespeare to rowdy sixth formers and still losing things.
But she has a much more pressing problem. Her mother, whose odd behaviour Frances has long put down to eccentricity, is slowly yielding to Alzheimer’s, leaving Frances with some disturbing questions about her father’s disappearance, and the family history she’s always believed in. Frances could really do with someone to talk to. Ideally Jackson: fellow teacher, dedicated hedonist, erstwhile best friend. Only they haven’t spoken since that night last summer when things got complicated . . .
As the new school year begins, and her mother’s behavior becomes more and more erratic, Frances realizes that she might just have a chance to find something for once. But will it be what she’s looking for?
My thoughts:
I am usually good at explaining why I don’t like a certain book, or why I feel the way I feel, and believe me, with this one, I have spent two days and 6 sittings in front of this draft (now published post) to try and write about it. So I am doing my best now…
First of all, there has to be something about a certain book to make me want to read it. With this one – there were two things:
I love romance and intrigue, and the blurb promised two people not really talking to each other, but sparks flying around… so yes, that got me.
The Alzheimer’s disease – as a person that has worked with people suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s, this subject is very close to my heart. I couldn’t miss this book for this reason.
Now – the romance part disappointed me, as there was no romance. No romance at all. Unless, of course, you count as a romance a person in their mid-forties sleeping around with drunk teens, and is then too complicated of a character to even realise who he loves, and why, and the moment he does, he still has no idea what to do with that information.
The other disappointment I had was that I expected to read about the Alzheimer’s, and not only that they weren’t there, but also some of the symptoms mentioned were not correct at all. There were only sex relationships and sex scenes, and that was supposed to define their relationship in the end. Not realistic at all.
Even though it seems that we follow Frances’s story throughout, we actually follow Jackson’s story as well. Their characters were too complicated and confusing for me, and it let me to now feel nor care about them at all. I honestly cared about Frances’s dog the most in this book.
The plot wasn’t perfect – there were times when the information given didn’t match.
[SPOILER ALERT]
The scene how Frances searches on Google to find the address of her dad. We are then told that she found out his address through Jean. Which one is it, then?
I am actually quite sad that I didn’t enjoy this book, but I will still be curious about new works from Lex Coulton, because, somehow, I really liked her writing style, despite all the flaws.
About the book:
Frances Pilgrim’s father went missing when she was five, and ever since all sorts of things have been going astray: car keys, promotions, a series of underwhelming and unsuitable boyfriends . . . Now here she is, thirty-bloody-nine, teaching Shakespeare to rowdy sixth formers and still losing things.
But she has a much more pressing problem. Her mother, whose odd behaviour Frances has long put down to eccentricity, is slowly yielding to Alzheimer’s, leaving Frances with some disturbing questions about her father’s disappearance, and the family history she’s always believed in. Frances could really do with someone to talk to. Ideally Jackson: fellow teacher, dedicated hedonist, erstwhile best friend. Only they haven’t spoken since that night last summer when things got complicated . . .
As the new school year begins, and her mother’s behavior becomes more and more erratic, Frances realizes that she might just have a chance to find something for once. But will it be what she’s looking for?
My thoughts:
I am usually good at explaining why I don’t like a certain book, or why I feel the way I feel, and believe me, with this one, I have spent two days and 6 sittings in front of this draft (now published post) to try and write about it. So I am doing my best now…
First of all, there has to be something about a certain book to make me want to read it. With this one – there were two things:
I love romance and intrigue, and the blurb promised two people not really talking to each other, but sparks flying around… so yes, that got me.
The Alzheimer’s disease – as a person that has worked with people suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s, this subject is very close to my heart. I couldn’t miss this book for this reason.
Now – the romance part disappointed me, as there was no romance. No romance at all. Unless, of course, you count as a romance a person in their mid-forties sleeping around with drunk teens, and is then too complicated of a character to even realise who he loves, and why, and the moment he does, he still has no idea what to do with that information.
The other disappointment I had was that I expected to read about the Alzheimer’s, and not only that they weren’t there, but also some of the symptoms mentioned were not correct at all. There were only sex relationships and sex scenes, and that was supposed to define their relationship in the end. Not realistic at all.
Even though it seems that we follow Frances’s story throughout, we actually follow Jackson’s story as well. Their characters were too complicated and confusing for me, and it let me to now feel nor care about them at all. I honestly cared about Frances’s dog the most in this book.
The plot wasn’t perfect – there were times when the information given didn’t match.
[SPOILER ALERT]
The scene how Frances searches on Google to find the address of her dad. We are then told that she found out his address through Jean. Which one is it, then?
I am actually quite sad that I didn’t enjoy this book, but I will still be curious about new works from Lex Coulton, because, somehow, I really liked her writing style, despite all the flaws.
Read4Kids - Kids learn to read in 20 easy lessons
Education and Book
App
Read is a 20-lesson program designed to help kindergarten and elementary school age children (4–8...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The length of time it’s taken me to catch this one at the cinema belies my lukewarm interest in the material: I’m not a ‘fan boy’ for either Marvel or DC properties. As it turns out, writer/director David “Fury” Ayer’s Suicide Squad is just plain frustrating in cinematic terms.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.