Search
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Mother/Android (2021) in Movies
Jan 14, 2022
Whilst there are a handful of positives about Mother/Android, they are woefully overshadowed by just how unoriginal the overall movie is.
Starting with said positives - Chloë Grace Moretz is always trying her best and here is no different. It's also nice to see Raúl Castillo popping up more and more at the moment and here is no different. There's a scene fairly late on, set in a house full of androids that is genuinely quite tense and is an obvious highlight.
Other than that, it's pretty dire. The dialogue is shoddy, and the writing is all over the place. None of the characters are particularly likable and there's not really anyone to root for (started rooting for the androids by the end). The opening scene is one of intrigue, promising something vaguely resembling Detroit: Become Human, but the story is rushed along so quickly that we're thrown straight into 9 months later, following a pregnant lady through some woods in America, whilst trying to stay silent. Very A Quiet Place. The android designs do nothing to differentiate from the designs seen in Terminator.
However, the most insulting moment of plagiarism comes during the climax, the events of which are quite bleak, and aim for the heartstrings. This moment is intercut with flashes of a happier time, whilst chaos unfolds in the distance, set to some somber music. All of which would have landed way better if it wasn't ripped straight from the undead hands of Train to Busan!
I'm sure that there will be plenty of people out there who find something to like when it comes to Mother/Android but for me, it just came across as plain lazy, lifting ideas from far superior movies left, right, and centre.
Starting with said positives - Chloë Grace Moretz is always trying her best and here is no different. It's also nice to see Raúl Castillo popping up more and more at the moment and here is no different. There's a scene fairly late on, set in a house full of androids that is genuinely quite tense and is an obvious highlight.
Other than that, it's pretty dire. The dialogue is shoddy, and the writing is all over the place. None of the characters are particularly likable and there's not really anyone to root for (started rooting for the androids by the end). The opening scene is one of intrigue, promising something vaguely resembling Detroit: Become Human, but the story is rushed along so quickly that we're thrown straight into 9 months later, following a pregnant lady through some woods in America, whilst trying to stay silent. Very A Quiet Place. The android designs do nothing to differentiate from the designs seen in Terminator.
However, the most insulting moment of plagiarism comes during the climax, the events of which are quite bleak, and aim for the heartstrings. This moment is intercut with flashes of a happier time, whilst chaos unfolds in the distance, set to some somber music. All of which would have landed way better if it wasn't ripped straight from the undead hands of Train to Busan!
I'm sure that there will be plenty of people out there who find something to like when it comes to Mother/Android but for me, it just came across as plain lazy, lifting ideas from far superior movies left, right, and centre.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Killers of the Flower moon (2023) in Movies
Oct 27, 2023
Best Thing Scorses (and DeNiro) have done in many, many years
The BankofMarquis would highly recommend you see the latest epic (and we do mean EPIC) film from famed Director Martin Scorsese in a movie theater. Not because of the beautiful Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto, not because of the Epic-ness of the tale told and not because movie theaters could use your business (all of which are reasons to see it in the movie theaters). You need to see KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON in a movie theater so that you cannot be distracted by things around you (most, notably your PHONE). One needs to immerse themselves in the experience of this 3 1/2 movie to totally understand and appreciate it.
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
And that is because KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is as much atmosphere, mood and setting as it is story. Early on, one of the characters warns another one that the Osage people (the central group in this story) “don’t say much, listen more and let long pauses hang between words” and Scorsese does much of the same. Letting the story hang - and be told in - the silence between the words. And it works…if you are paying attention.
Starring Scorsese regulars Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro and featuring a wonderful, soon-to-be-Oscar-Nominated performance by newcomer Lily Gladstone, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON is based on the novel of the same name by David Gann and tells the tale of the Osage Nation who discover oil on their land in the 1920’s and the white men who come to try to connive and steal it away from them.
Taken on the surface, this story could be a pretty straight-forward white-man steals from the Indians story (substitute Buffalo for Oil and we have a story told so many times before - most notably in the Oscar winning movie DANCING WITH WOLVES), but in the hands of master craftsman Scorsese, this movie is much, much more than that.
Easily his best work in at least 10 years, Scorsese lets this story breathe and focuses in on the mood and atmosphere of the period - and the disparate people that inhabit…and battle for…this land and oil. It is the work of a maestro nearing the end of his tenure, skillfully conducting the Orchestra, one last, loving, magnificent time.
Like Scorsese, this is Oscar winner Robert DeNiro’s best performance in years and will not be surprised if he garners his first Oscar nomination in many, many years. Gone are the histrionics and over-the-top gestures and facial ticks that mar his comedic work (and in some cases his non-comedic work). DeNiro returns to the compact, internal “method” acting that was the hallmark of his early (best) work. You can see that this player still has “game” and he gives the role of William “King” Hale some dimension. This is good for this character could have, in lesser hands, turned into a “mustache-twirling” villain tying the heroine to the railroad tracks but in DeNiro’s capable hands (with Scorsese skillfully leading him) it is so much more.
Speaking of the Heroine, newcomer Lily Gladstone is just a strong and compact in her portrayal of Mollie Burkhart - the Osage woman in the center of the story. She gives Lily some sharp edges along with the rounded corners she is given in the script and the story and more than holds her own with the likes of DeNiro and DiCaprio in the many, many scenes she has with them. Most of the time, she needs to express quite a bit with a look or silence (while looking away) and she is able to convey that very, very well.
Fairing less well in this film is Leonardo DiCaprio as Ernest Burkhart, the sad-sack that is the pawn of “King” Hale and the love interest of Lily…or is he? DiCaprio is very good as Burkhart (when has he ever given a bad performance) but this character is thinly written and you can almost see the puppet strings on him. This, probably, is on purpose by Scorsese…but against two solid characters like DeNiro’s “King” Hale and Gladstone’s Molly, there just needed to be a bit more to DiCaprio’s character to make him more interesting.
Since this is a Scorsese film, it is fleshed out by some wonderful character actors led by the always watchable Jesse Plemons as the FBI agent sent to unpack what is going on. Joining him in what are (essentially) extended cameos are John Lithgow, newly minted Oscar winner Brendan Fraser, the always good Tantoo Cardinal, Scott Shepherd (as Leo’s brother) and a myriad of “that guy” and “interesting looking roughnecks” to flesh the feel of the film out - both on the white man as well as the Osage sides of the story.
The aforementioned Cinematography by Rodrigo Prieto along with the Costuming (Jacqueline West), Production Design (Jack Fisk) and Score (Robbie Peterson) all add to the mood of the piece and makes it very successful, indeed.
Just be forewarned, it is as every bit of 3 1/2 hours as it’s runtime dictates. There will be long, slow, silent parts that will make you tempted to pick up your phone - but resist that and enjoy the epic mood piece that is KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON. You won’t regret it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated News of the World (2020) in Movies
Jan 17, 2021
Strongly Acted and Directed
Pound for pound, Tom Hanks is the best actor of this generation. From his big screen debut in SPLASH to his Oscar Nominated turn in BIG to his back-to-back Oscar wins for PHILADELPHIA and FORREST GUMP to more recent works like SULLY and THE POST, Hanks’ “everyman goodness” quality shines through the screen and makes him a screen presence that cannot be ignored.
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Hell's Angels (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Big budget, elaborate air combat scenes which resulted in several deaths and Gimmick after gimmick… This has to be the Howard Hughes’ World War 1 epic, Hell’s Angels.
Where to begin?
Well, we follow the Routledge two brothers as they join the war effort and the Royal Air Corps. in 1914 and whilst one is a somewhat cowardly womaniser, his brother is the noble heroic type who spends the film being screwed over bey everyone in one way or another, but most notably by his girlfriend, Jean Harlow, who is so annoyingly wrong for him that it is a relief when he has heart is broken by her in the third act.
But like mots aspects of this plot, this is as messy and disjointed as everything else. We are given a story line to follow for two hours, as Hughes indulges his legendary love of flying to create some of the best dog fight sequences ever committed to film. They are real, epic and effective in conveying the thrilling danger of these world war one battles.
But this is a film of gimmick. Pushing the pre-code envelope with sex and bad language, this was originally conceived as a silent movie and was re-written and re-shot to become the sound movie whcih we have to today and there in clearly lies the problem. What we end up is a movie cobbled together, with silence sequences being converted to sound, the poor acting from its star James Hall as the idealistic Roy Routledge, Jean Harlow, replacing the original silent star Gretta Nissen for this sound version, excelling in her role as his trampy girlfriend and Ben Lyon as the weaker brother, Monte, but the real star of this show are the special effects.
But of the human stars, Harlow, presented here in the only colour footage known to exist of the tragic star, who would die at the young age of 26 just seven years later, probably delivers one of the best performances in the whole picture, certainly outshining her male co-stars.
Of the special effects though, the use of 2-tone Technicolor, which was actually shot with the Metrocolor system but processed by Technicolor, in one sequence as the group are all together at a party, as well as the classical use of tints during some other scenes, add a vibrancy to the project. But this also can have a jarring effect, especially as we leave the colour scenes and wrap up thet sequences in black and white.
But the model effects, notably the munition raid at the end and the Zeppelin bombing London scenes are spectacular, especially for the time. The other notable gimmick which has yet to be transferred to the small screen, was the original use of what was called Magnascope back in 1930.
This was obviously only used at high end theaters but this paved the way for what IMAX are doing now, by blowing up the aerial scenes into a larger screen format from the 1.20:1 ratio which the the rest of film was presented. But when you add all this up you have got a mess!
Magnascope, technicolor scenes, tinted scenes, daring aerial battles, a half arsed love story and an image of world war which was a kin to that of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor’s (2001) view of World War 2! But this is what this is. An early, lavish popcorn blockbuster, with little to offer but cinematic thrills, which it succeeds at without any doubt.
The action is great, the plot is mediocre to say the least but as film, it does offer a brief insight into how cinema audiences saw the Great War back in 1930 and you can not help but think that this audience was only nine years away from the next one as we watch this.
pictureBut the ending was grim, with noble ends rounding off a story of brotherly love and love of duty and country, seems overblown considering what we had had to sit through but still, by the end, is anybody really routing for the Routledge brothers to have a happy ending?
I certainly was not. But this ending is the nearest thing that this film has to a story arc, as is pays off the opening act where Roy risks his life fighting a duel for his cowardly brother against the very German officer who is about to have them executed.
Duty wins out and Monte sees the light at the end after a very melodramatic death scene.
But having said all that, this film is worth it for the action alone and for film buffs, the only colour footage of Jean Harlow.
Where to begin?
Well, we follow the Routledge two brothers as they join the war effort and the Royal Air Corps. in 1914 and whilst one is a somewhat cowardly womaniser, his brother is the noble heroic type who spends the film being screwed over bey everyone in one way or another, but most notably by his girlfriend, Jean Harlow, who is so annoyingly wrong for him that it is a relief when he has heart is broken by her in the third act.
But like mots aspects of this plot, this is as messy and disjointed as everything else. We are given a story line to follow for two hours, as Hughes indulges his legendary love of flying to create some of the best dog fight sequences ever committed to film. They are real, epic and effective in conveying the thrilling danger of these world war one battles.
But this is a film of gimmick. Pushing the pre-code envelope with sex and bad language, this was originally conceived as a silent movie and was re-written and re-shot to become the sound movie whcih we have to today and there in clearly lies the problem. What we end up is a movie cobbled together, with silence sequences being converted to sound, the poor acting from its star James Hall as the idealistic Roy Routledge, Jean Harlow, replacing the original silent star Gretta Nissen for this sound version, excelling in her role as his trampy girlfriend and Ben Lyon as the weaker brother, Monte, but the real star of this show are the special effects.
But of the human stars, Harlow, presented here in the only colour footage known to exist of the tragic star, who would die at the young age of 26 just seven years later, probably delivers one of the best performances in the whole picture, certainly outshining her male co-stars.
Of the special effects though, the use of 2-tone Technicolor, which was actually shot with the Metrocolor system but processed by Technicolor, in one sequence as the group are all together at a party, as well as the classical use of tints during some other scenes, add a vibrancy to the project. But this also can have a jarring effect, especially as we leave the colour scenes and wrap up thet sequences in black and white.
But the model effects, notably the munition raid at the end and the Zeppelin bombing London scenes are spectacular, especially for the time. The other notable gimmick which has yet to be transferred to the small screen, was the original use of what was called Magnascope back in 1930.
This was obviously only used at high end theaters but this paved the way for what IMAX are doing now, by blowing up the aerial scenes into a larger screen format from the 1.20:1 ratio which the the rest of film was presented. But when you add all this up you have got a mess!
Magnascope, technicolor scenes, tinted scenes, daring aerial battles, a half arsed love story and an image of world war which was a kin to that of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor’s (2001) view of World War 2! But this is what this is. An early, lavish popcorn blockbuster, with little to offer but cinematic thrills, which it succeeds at without any doubt.
The action is great, the plot is mediocre to say the least but as film, it does offer a brief insight into how cinema audiences saw the Great War back in 1930 and you can not help but think that this audience was only nine years away from the next one as we watch this.
pictureBut the ending was grim, with noble ends rounding off a story of brotherly love and love of duty and country, seems overblown considering what we had had to sit through but still, by the end, is anybody really routing for the Routledge brothers to have a happy ending?
I certainly was not. But this ending is the nearest thing that this film has to a story arc, as is pays off the opening act where Roy risks his life fighting a duel for his cowardly brother against the very German officer who is about to have them executed.
Duty wins out and Monte sees the light at the end after a very melodramatic death scene.
But having said all that, this film is worth it for the action alone and for film buffs, the only colour footage of Jean Harlow.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
May 14, 2019
Jason
#themeg all be it a highly forgettable film manages to be an extreamly enjoyable #shark romp that ends just before it begins to out stay its welcome. Sitting somewhere between #Theshallows & #deepbluesea #meg is an an American-Chinese co-production & it shows. There's an incredible amount of #chinese cast members here witch is very refreshing to see in a big #American #blockbuster & they all do a fantastic job at acting too. China locations are also #beautiful to look at & there's a fantastic sense of depth to the #ocean visuals making for some gorgeously tense silent under #water scenes. Cgi is alright for the most part & does a good job with its highly detailed shark models. Surprisingly #jasonstatham is the star of the show here & when he wasnt on screen I was longing for more time with him rather than the shark itself. Not only is he extremely #charming & charismatic he's absolutely hilarious, clearly realising what type of movie he signed up for & just having a ton of fun. Its a very silly film which plays to its advantage but the problems come when it tries to get to serious, it just kills the flow & makes the film #grind to a halt at times. Over all the message was alright too with its themes of how the human ego leads us to being so #cocky & sure of ourselves that we believe we are superior & invulnerable only to be shot down or knocked off guard by something more primitive. Major influences from old #japanese #monster #movies are a nice touch & characters are all very likable but they seem to have no cares for each other at all which all though odd actually does work in the films favour. A bit repetitive after a while with an abrupt anticlimactic ending Meg is well worth a watch & a ton of #silly forgettable #fun. Way less violent than I expected too. #odeon #odeonlimitless #friyay #gore #horror #scary #themegmovie #review #filmbuff #sharknado
American Showman: Samuel Roxy Rothafel and the Birth of the Entertainment Industry, 1908-1935
Book
Samuel "Roxy" Rothafel (1882-1936) built an influential and prolific career as film exhibitor, stage...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Inmate #1: The Rise of Danny Trejo (2020) in Movies
Sep 6, 2020
Danny Trejo is a man with the most terrifying voice I've ever heard, but after watching this, I just really really really want to be his friend.
I remember being completely drawn in by his silent character in Desperado, and then shortly after, recognising him in From Dusk Till Dawn. He's a guy who always manages to cut an intriguing and intimidating figure whatever movie he has been in.
His backstory has become just as famous, his incarceration at San Quentin in particular being pretty common knowledge.
This documentary really dives into his life story, starting with his childhood years, through his time in multie prisons, and then through his acting career and life as a changed man, and a genuinely good person. Watching Trejo speak about his life is just wonderful. The details he recalls are hugely interesting and the way he speaks about everyone he has come across through his life is respectful. He acknowledges that his life these days is a good one, and he can look back on his tougher years and find the humour in some of the shit that he endured.
All of the guests on this documentary, from fellow actors like Donal Logue and Michelle Rodriguez, to director Robert Rodriguez, to fellow inmates, to family members, all speak of him with a lot of warmth.
While Inmate #1 (a reference to some of his early acting credits) does indeed chronicle all of his misdemeanors, his difficult upbringing, his criminal life, it also shines a light on all of the good he has done since leaving prison in 1969. The amount of work he has done for his community is tremendous, and he still gives talks and lectures today, trying to help people who need it. It's an important balance in the way the narrative is told and reveals Trejo to be a pretty down to earth guy.
Its a super interesting story that's worth checking out. Long Live Dany Trejo.
I remember being completely drawn in by his silent character in Desperado, and then shortly after, recognising him in From Dusk Till Dawn. He's a guy who always manages to cut an intriguing and intimidating figure whatever movie he has been in.
His backstory has become just as famous, his incarceration at San Quentin in particular being pretty common knowledge.
This documentary really dives into his life story, starting with his childhood years, through his time in multie prisons, and then through his acting career and life as a changed man, and a genuinely good person. Watching Trejo speak about his life is just wonderful. The details he recalls are hugely interesting and the way he speaks about everyone he has come across through his life is respectful. He acknowledges that his life these days is a good one, and he can look back on his tougher years and find the humour in some of the shit that he endured.
All of the guests on this documentary, from fellow actors like Donal Logue and Michelle Rodriguez, to director Robert Rodriguez, to fellow inmates, to family members, all speak of him with a lot of warmth.
While Inmate #1 (a reference to some of his early acting credits) does indeed chronicle all of his misdemeanors, his difficult upbringing, his criminal life, it also shines a light on all of the good he has done since leaving prison in 1969. The amount of work he has done for his community is tremendous, and he still gives talks and lectures today, trying to help people who need it. It's an important balance in the way the narrative is told and reveals Trejo to be a pretty down to earth guy.
Its a super interesting story that's worth checking out. Long Live Dany Trejo.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Chernobyl Diaries (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
What do you get when you pair the director of “Paranormal Activity” with a handful of unknown actors, a one-hit wonder soap-star-turned-singer, and a plot based upon the Chernobyl meltdown? You guessed it: a sub-par suspense film with a poorly executed ending.
Meet Chris, Amanda, and Natalie – a trio of pretty Americans touring Europe and en route to Russia to meet Chris’ older brother, Paul, in Minsk. Unbeknownst to Amanda, Chris confides in his older brother his plan to propose to her upon their arrival in Moscow, their next destination. However, Paul decides to intervene and proposes a new plan: an extreme tourism excursion in the abandoned city of Pripyat, just outside of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. Despite Chris’ pleas, the group decides to take up Paul’s offer and embark the next day to Chernobyl/Pripyat under the guide of Uri, an ex-Soviet Special Forces agent.
Piling into an assault-van of sorts and accompanied by a pair of last minute travelers – an Aussie named Mike and his blonde Norse girlfriend, Zoe – they set off on the 2-hour drive to Pripyat. However, it is upon arrival at their destination that they find the area restricted to tourists by the Soviet guard. Undaunted, Uri drives the van to another remote access point, stealing them into the abandoned city of Pripyat for their excursion. It is there, as one can imagine, that some unknown element intercedes and prevents them from leaving the city. Somehow wires to the van’s starter are cut and they are forced to stay overnight. It’s at this point, as you can imagine, the horror movie element sets in and the typical suspense-film-plot takes over.
Of course, people leave the van to investigate “strange noises” and, of course, they are picked off one by one. As the movie progresses and the horror-film starts to settle in, the plot unravels and you’re ultimately left with one of the lamest endings conceived. Basically, you’ve had almost two hour’s worth of build-up and suspense for absolutely nothing.
Suspense-wise, you’re definitely going to jump here and there; my poor date had to suffer through my grabbing his hand and leg on more than one occasion. Acting wise, there’s nothing substantial. Jesse McCartney draws upon his experience as a soap actor for the more emotional role and Devin Kelley who plays Amanda seems more adept at sticking out her chest than acting her way out of a bag. But I digress, horror movies aren’t exactly based on strong acting skills, right?
If you’re looking for a good suspense film, something that gives you an excuse to grab your date’s hand or squeal like a girl, then this is a good film for that. If you’re looking for something twisted, something akin to “The Hills Have Eyes” or “Silent Hill,” then this falls rather short in comparison. The director had so many opportunities to delve further into the Chernobyl mystery and play up the radiation/mutation stab, but failed to provide any substance behind his direction. For my taste, there were too many unanswered questions and vague allusions for me to be wholly impressed with the movie. The premise had a lot of potential and promise but honestly failed to deliver.
Meet Chris, Amanda, and Natalie – a trio of pretty Americans touring Europe and en route to Russia to meet Chris’ older brother, Paul, in Minsk. Unbeknownst to Amanda, Chris confides in his older brother his plan to propose to her upon their arrival in Moscow, their next destination. However, Paul decides to intervene and proposes a new plan: an extreme tourism excursion in the abandoned city of Pripyat, just outside of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. Despite Chris’ pleas, the group decides to take up Paul’s offer and embark the next day to Chernobyl/Pripyat under the guide of Uri, an ex-Soviet Special Forces agent.
Piling into an assault-van of sorts and accompanied by a pair of last minute travelers – an Aussie named Mike and his blonde Norse girlfriend, Zoe – they set off on the 2-hour drive to Pripyat. However, it is upon arrival at their destination that they find the area restricted to tourists by the Soviet guard. Undaunted, Uri drives the van to another remote access point, stealing them into the abandoned city of Pripyat for their excursion. It is there, as one can imagine, that some unknown element intercedes and prevents them from leaving the city. Somehow wires to the van’s starter are cut and they are forced to stay overnight. It’s at this point, as you can imagine, the horror movie element sets in and the typical suspense-film-plot takes over.
Of course, people leave the van to investigate “strange noises” and, of course, they are picked off one by one. As the movie progresses and the horror-film starts to settle in, the plot unravels and you’re ultimately left with one of the lamest endings conceived. Basically, you’ve had almost two hour’s worth of build-up and suspense for absolutely nothing.
Suspense-wise, you’re definitely going to jump here and there; my poor date had to suffer through my grabbing his hand and leg on more than one occasion. Acting wise, there’s nothing substantial. Jesse McCartney draws upon his experience as a soap actor for the more emotional role and Devin Kelley who plays Amanda seems more adept at sticking out her chest than acting her way out of a bag. But I digress, horror movies aren’t exactly based on strong acting skills, right?
If you’re looking for a good suspense film, something that gives you an excuse to grab your date’s hand or squeal like a girl, then this is a good film for that. If you’re looking for something twisted, something akin to “The Hills Have Eyes” or “Silent Hill,” then this falls rather short in comparison. The director had so many opportunities to delve further into the Chernobyl mystery and play up the radiation/mutation stab, but failed to provide any substance behind his direction. For my taste, there were too many unanswered questions and vague allusions for me to be wholly impressed with the movie. The premise had a lot of potential and promise but honestly failed to deliver.
RA
Rockne and Jones: Notre Dame, USC, and the Greatest Rivalry of the Roaring Twenties
Book
Notre Dame's rallying cry was once "Win one for the Gipper." e football series with Army that...