Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Molly's Game (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wordy but entertaining.
You can never accuse Aaron Sorkin of skimping on his words. Sorkin is of course the award-winning writer of “The West Wing” but on the big screen he has also written many classics: “A Few Good Men”; “The Social Network” and “Steve Jobs” for example. Here he also makes his directorial debut in a movie about the true-life turbulent career of Olympic wannabe skier Molly Bloom.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Snowman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We’re trudging through the slush”.
Unlike its animated namesake, “The Snowman” is not a good film. Frustratingly it has all the right ingredients:
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
A story by bestselling Nordic writer Jo Nesbø;
Gorgeously photogenic snowy scenes of Oslo and Bergen;
A stellar cast (Michael Fassbender (“Alien: Covenant“); Rebecca Ferguson (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“); J.K. Simmons (“Whiplash“); Toby Jones (“Dad’s Army“); Chloe Sevigny (“Love and Friendship“); Charlotte Gainsbourg (“Independence Day: Resurgence“, very sexy as Fassbender’s ex-squeeze) and even Val Kilmer (“Top Gun”, whose mother – interesting fact – is actually Swedish).
snowman2
That sinking feeling when you realise you’ve been drinking all night and its too late for bed before work.
And while these elements congeal in the snow together quite well as vignettes, the whole film jerks from vignette to vignette in a most unsatisfactory way. I haven’t read the book (which might be much better) but the inclusion in the (terrible!) trailers of key scenes that never made the final cut (where was the fire for example?, the fish? the man trap?) implied to me that the director (Tomas Alfredson, “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy”) and screenwriting team – Peter Straughan (also “Tinker, Tailor”), Hossein Amini (“The Two Faces of January“) and Søren Sveistrup (TV’s “The Killing”) – either didn’t have (or didn’t agree on) the direction they wanted the film to go in.
Film Title: The Snowman
Arve Stop (J.K. Simmons) and Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) having a “Weinstein moment” at the hotel.
Nesbø (and indeed most crime writers these days) litter their work with damaged cops…. you have to question whether the detective application form has a mandatory check-box with “alcoholic and borderline psycho” on it!. This film is no exception. Fassbender plays Nesbø’s master sleuth Harry Hole: an alcoholic insomniac well off the rails between homicide cases. “If only Oslo had a higher murder rate” bemoans his boss (Ronan Vibert). He joins forces with newby officer Katrine Bratt (Rebecca Ferguson), who has her fair share of mental demons to fight, in investigating a series of missing person/murder cases. The duo unearth a link between the cases – all happen when the snow starts to fall and to particular types of women, with the protagonist leaving a snowman at the scene.
snowman5
One of the cuter snowmen… they get worse… much worse.
The plot is highly formulaic – I guessed who the killer was within about 20 minutes. But what makes this movie stand out, for all the wrong reasons, is that it has one of the most stupid, vacuous, flaccid, inane, ridiculous … (add 50 other thesaurus entries)… endings imaginable. My mouth actually gaped in astonishment!
There are also a surprisingly large number of loose ends you ponder after the film ends: why the “Snowman”‘s fixation with Harry?; what was with the “Vetlesen cleaner” subplot? How is Star Trek transportation possible in Norway? (But wait… “Telemark”… “Teleport”…. coincidence????? 🙂
On the plus side, there is some lovely Norwegian drone cinematography – (by Australian Dion Beebe (“Edge of Tomorrow“) – that immediately made me put “travel by winter train from Oslo to Bergen” on my life-map. The music by Marco Beltrami (“Logan“) is also effective and suitably Hitchcockian.
If you like your films gory, this one is definitely for you, with some pretty graphic content that (for those who like to cover their eyes) is cut to so quickly by editors Thelma Schoonmaker (“The Wolf of Wall Street“) and Claire Simpson (“Far From The Madding Crowd“) that your hands won’t have time to leave your lap! I remember this being a feature of a previous Nesbø adaptation (the much better “Headhunters” from 2011) but here it goes into overdrive.
snowman1
One of my favourite actresses – Rebecca Ferguson, curiously playing much “younger” in this film than she appears in her previous hits.
Overall this was a rather disappointing effort that was heading for a FFf rating. But just because of that ending I’m knocking a whole extra Fad off!
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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Crushingly Mediocre
I’d read the bad reviews, but thought “Hey, it’s Tom Cruise – how bad could it be?” The answer is, “Pretty bad”.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A robot you could take home to meet mother.
I was intrigued to watch the other day (purely for the interest in the technology employed of course!) a short Guardian video on the development of the world’s first fully functioning sex robot: a disturbing watch, requiring a fairly broad mind. Watching it on the same day as going to see Scarlett Johansson’s new film “Ghost in the Shell” though was a mistake, since the similarities between Johansson’s character (‘Major’) and the animatronic sex doll (‘Harmony’) were… erm… distracting.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hell or High Water (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sometimes a blind pig finds a truffle”.
One of the joys (and stresses) of the run up to the Oscar weekend is to try to catch all the major award films before the big event. As I bitched about in my BAFTA write-up, UK release dates do NOT make this an easy task, with some films like Paul Verhoeven’s “Elle”, featuring Best Actress nominee Isabelle Huppert, not released until mid March.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Well multiversed.
In the latest Marvel film (notably now available with the snazzy new Marvel production logo at the start) Benedict Cumberbatch (“Sherlock”, “Star Trek Into Darkness”) plays the titular hero: a neurosurgeon with exceptional skills, an encyclopedic knowledge of discographies and an ego to rival Donald Trump.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Assassin's Creed: The Official Movie Novelization in Books
May 21, 2017
Descriptive Writing brings out so much more information (6 more)
Characters and settings remain true in the adaptation
(Special Edition) Short stories to give more information and characters to the film
Action sequences are beautifully written
(Special Edition) Behind the Scenes stuff
(Special Edition) Beautiful Concept Art
(Special Edition) An overview of the Spanish Inquistion and the historical accuracy of the film
Bringing forth what the movie could not
So, as you all know this film, and this franchise, are my favourites, so my opinion is somewhat bias, but please understand that I know that the movie is in no way perfect or close to perfect of what it could have been, but I love what they have done.
With that said, I turned my attention to the novel, and pre-ordered the special edition because I knew it would make a great addition to my collection of Assassin's Creed novels, and I wanted everything I could possibly get from the novel. I love all the behind the scenes features on a DVD/Blu Ray and when I heard that this book contained some BHS content I wanted it so badly that I made sure I got the special edition despite the addition to the price.
The adaptation of the Film to the novel, is incredible. When Movies are adapted from Books, there will always be the person with you that says "The Book is always better". Sometimes, in the vice versa of this situation, when books are adapted from films, it doesn't always add anything more to make the film's plot better, or give you anything else to think about. This book is something else entirely.
In the movie we are introduced to so many characters, and so many sub plots that just can't be explored in the film itself, because it would be what I and others like to call, a cluster fuck. There would far too much going on, and people already seemed confused by the simple plot of the film, that the addition of these subplots would have given them a headache and everything they needed to see to enjoy the movie would be lost even further, as people would walk out of the cinemas saying "What the heck did I just watch?". Books allow the writer and the reader the freedom to explore these subplots and open up our experience to these other characters such as Moussa, Emir, Nathan, and Lin. If you don't even know these names, that's because the film didn't get the opportunity to express to you the importance of these names, whilst introducing them in a way that you only really remember them as, 'The other assassins in the facility who organize the breakout of Abstergo finale'.
However these characters each have their own Assassin ancestors, at least two of which are heavily connected to the video games. Lin's ancestor, is Shao Jun, the protagonist who you play as in Assassin's Creed Chronicles: China. Emir's ancestor, is a Turkish Assassin named Yusuf, the same Yusuf who you befriend in Assassin's Creed: Revelations, whilst playing as an older Ezio Auditore in his final video game to end the Ezio Trilogy. In the movie's special features, there is a deleted scene in which Cal is able to see these ancestors, during the common room scene as he is trying to eat his steak. However it was taken out due to it not making much sense for him to be able to see other people ancestors via the bleeding effect. The novel on the other hand, doesn't need this scene, and instead the reader is treated to the thoughts and a little backstory to each of these modern day assassins, and how they had felt after being introduced to their ancestors, and how they connected to them through their own lives.
We learn even more about the films central characters as well, mainly Aguilar, Sofia and Callum Lynch, and the novel adaptation gives us a new view on their relationship as a whole. Sofia feels emotions she has never felt with other patients. Callum has a lot running through his mind that just can't be spoken or portrayed in the film. Aguilar's relationship to his fellow Assassin Maria is opened up to us, with us learning that they had been very intimate, and that despite never truly portraying their love for one another, the two assassins knew what the other was thinking and they moved and thought in unison with one another, which makes the final memory sequence, that much more heart breaking, and powerful.
The book grants us access to everything, and this is what makes it such a thrilling read. From start to finish I just wanted to read on and on, despite how heavy my eyes felt at night, tucked up in bed. It grips you and pulls you into the exciting journey of the beautifully written emotional rollercoster. Christie Golden, known for her own literary work and for her work on other franchise based novels, including Star Wars, World of Warcraft and Star Trek, has done a fantastic job at expanded the movie into a new experience, which even I wasn't expecting, and I've watched the film twice in the cinema and about 7 times since the day of it's digital release, March 10, 2017. I really do love this book and everything it has to offer.
My only bad point, which is personal to me, as I have theories about certain points of this movie, and I was hoping it would help answer some of my theories. However, whilst it expanded on them a little, giving more evidence to support one of my theories, it simply left more questions than answers. That is no fault of the writer or her work, but simply to my own inquisitive mind. The book overall has no faults in my opinion.
If you enjoyed the movie, you'll love the book more. If you didn't enjoy the movie, give the book a try. It might surprise you.
With that said, I turned my attention to the novel, and pre-ordered the special edition because I knew it would make a great addition to my collection of Assassin's Creed novels, and I wanted everything I could possibly get from the novel. I love all the behind the scenes features on a DVD/Blu Ray and when I heard that this book contained some BHS content I wanted it so badly that I made sure I got the special edition despite the addition to the price.
The adaptation of the Film to the novel, is incredible. When Movies are adapted from Books, there will always be the person with you that says "The Book is always better". Sometimes, in the vice versa of this situation, when books are adapted from films, it doesn't always add anything more to make the film's plot better, or give you anything else to think about. This book is something else entirely.
In the movie we are introduced to so many characters, and so many sub plots that just can't be explored in the film itself, because it would be what I and others like to call, a cluster fuck. There would far too much going on, and people already seemed confused by the simple plot of the film, that the addition of these subplots would have given them a headache and everything they needed to see to enjoy the movie would be lost even further, as people would walk out of the cinemas saying "What the heck did I just watch?". Books allow the writer and the reader the freedom to explore these subplots and open up our experience to these other characters such as Moussa, Emir, Nathan, and Lin. If you don't even know these names, that's because the film didn't get the opportunity to express to you the importance of these names, whilst introducing them in a way that you only really remember them as, 'The other assassins in the facility who organize the breakout of Abstergo finale'.
However these characters each have their own Assassin ancestors, at least two of which are heavily connected to the video games. Lin's ancestor, is Shao Jun, the protagonist who you play as in Assassin's Creed Chronicles: China. Emir's ancestor, is a Turkish Assassin named Yusuf, the same Yusuf who you befriend in Assassin's Creed: Revelations, whilst playing as an older Ezio Auditore in his final video game to end the Ezio Trilogy. In the movie's special features, there is a deleted scene in which Cal is able to see these ancestors, during the common room scene as he is trying to eat his steak. However it was taken out due to it not making much sense for him to be able to see other people ancestors via the bleeding effect. The novel on the other hand, doesn't need this scene, and instead the reader is treated to the thoughts and a little backstory to each of these modern day assassins, and how they had felt after being introduced to their ancestors, and how they connected to them through their own lives.
We learn even more about the films central characters as well, mainly Aguilar, Sofia and Callum Lynch, and the novel adaptation gives us a new view on their relationship as a whole. Sofia feels emotions she has never felt with other patients. Callum has a lot running through his mind that just can't be spoken or portrayed in the film. Aguilar's relationship to his fellow Assassin Maria is opened up to us, with us learning that they had been very intimate, and that despite never truly portraying their love for one another, the two assassins knew what the other was thinking and they moved and thought in unison with one another, which makes the final memory sequence, that much more heart breaking, and powerful.
The book grants us access to everything, and this is what makes it such a thrilling read. From start to finish I just wanted to read on and on, despite how heavy my eyes felt at night, tucked up in bed. It grips you and pulls you into the exciting journey of the beautifully written emotional rollercoster. Christie Golden, known for her own literary work and for her work on other franchise based novels, including Star Wars, World of Warcraft and Star Trek, has done a fantastic job at expanded the movie into a new experience, which even I wasn't expecting, and I've watched the film twice in the cinema and about 7 times since the day of it's digital release, March 10, 2017. I really do love this book and everything it has to offer.
My only bad point, which is personal to me, as I have theories about certain points of this movie, and I was hoping it would help answer some of my theories. However, whilst it expanded on them a little, giving more evidence to support one of my theories, it simply left more questions than answers. That is no fault of the writer or her work, but simply to my own inquisitive mind. The book overall has no faults in my opinion.
If you enjoyed the movie, you'll love the book more. If you didn't enjoy the movie, give the book a try. It might surprise you.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated The Purge: Anarchy (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Last year audiences got a glimpse into a future America where crime, unemployment, and other social factors were at an all-time low. The cost for such radical social transformation was an annual Purge where for 12 hours; all crimes including murder are legal.
The film was made for less than $4 million and went on to become a surprise hit which naturally gave rise to sequel plans.
“The Purge: Anarchy” picks up a year later shortly before the annual Purge commences. The story follows three main groups of people who are preparing for the pending evening in Los Angeles.
Eva, (Carmen Ejogo), is a single mom who works as a waitress when she is not caring for her daughter and father, Shane and Liz a coupling facing a possible separation, ( Zach Gilford, Kiele Sanchez), and a mysterious man known as Sargent (Frank Grillo).
Although strangers at the start of the evening, fate brings them all together on an evening where not everyone can be trusted as people can turn on one another over long standing grudges or simply to ‘free the beast” as they call it citing their right to do so as granted by the new founding fathers.
The streets have become a battlefield as the carnage builds up and people locked in their buildings soon find themselves under attack from black armor clad shock troops supported by chain gun equipped semi-trailers.
The main characters of the film must work with one another to stay alive as Sergeant as desperate need of a car to replace the one he lost saving his companions, but to the others he is a dangerous wildcard that they are not sure can be trusted.
As the group moves through the streets looking for safety, danger is all around them and as they evening progresses they learn more and more about the Purge and who in society benefits the most from this annual event.
With death a constant companion, the group must survive against all odds in a world gone mad for 12 hours and with limited options, they must take on the deadliest threats ever assembled for The Purge.
The film is a rare sequel that is actually better than the original. The increased budget shows as the ability to set the story in a city rather than a single home has allowed a more diverse cast of characters, motivations, and scenarios to be presented.
Aside from the solid mix of action and suspense, I enjoyed the fact that the characters came across as real people rather than stereotypical fodder for films of this type. While there is not tons of depth given to them, we are given enough information to understand their motivations and find a reason to care for them.
The film also takes on some very touchy subjects such as social injustices, the needs of the poor vs the seemingly uncaring attitudes of the wealthy and how laws seem to be made often to appease only the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.
Taking on such difficult subject matter without becoming overly preachy was a strong point of the film as it not only entertained but raised some very good questions and social commentary while allowing the audience to make up their own minds.
This reminded me in many ways of the original Star Trek series as they were pioneers in taking on topics that the network censors would not allow by hiding it in the cloak of fantasy. The powers that be had little knowledge of what was being presented but those who did watch the show clearly got the message.
This was evident in the film when the tables turned on a sadistic and elite socialite which resulted in loud cheers and applause from the audience.
There has been talk that the next film in the series may be a prequel and deal with the original Purge and how it came to be. I for one would love to see more as the nature of the premise gives rise to so many stories and scenarios in one night alone, and the fact that the Purge is an annual event, and then perhaps we will see films in this series on a regular basis. If they keep up the quality of this one, then I say bring them on.
http://sknr.net/2014/07/18/the-purge-anarchy/
The film was made for less than $4 million and went on to become a surprise hit which naturally gave rise to sequel plans.
“The Purge: Anarchy” picks up a year later shortly before the annual Purge commences. The story follows three main groups of people who are preparing for the pending evening in Los Angeles.
Eva, (Carmen Ejogo), is a single mom who works as a waitress when she is not caring for her daughter and father, Shane and Liz a coupling facing a possible separation, ( Zach Gilford, Kiele Sanchez), and a mysterious man known as Sargent (Frank Grillo).
Although strangers at the start of the evening, fate brings them all together on an evening where not everyone can be trusted as people can turn on one another over long standing grudges or simply to ‘free the beast” as they call it citing their right to do so as granted by the new founding fathers.
The streets have become a battlefield as the carnage builds up and people locked in their buildings soon find themselves under attack from black armor clad shock troops supported by chain gun equipped semi-trailers.
The main characters of the film must work with one another to stay alive as Sergeant as desperate need of a car to replace the one he lost saving his companions, but to the others he is a dangerous wildcard that they are not sure can be trusted.
As the group moves through the streets looking for safety, danger is all around them and as they evening progresses they learn more and more about the Purge and who in society benefits the most from this annual event.
With death a constant companion, the group must survive against all odds in a world gone mad for 12 hours and with limited options, they must take on the deadliest threats ever assembled for The Purge.
The film is a rare sequel that is actually better than the original. The increased budget shows as the ability to set the story in a city rather than a single home has allowed a more diverse cast of characters, motivations, and scenarios to be presented.
Aside from the solid mix of action and suspense, I enjoyed the fact that the characters came across as real people rather than stereotypical fodder for films of this type. While there is not tons of depth given to them, we are given enough information to understand their motivations and find a reason to care for them.
The film also takes on some very touchy subjects such as social injustices, the needs of the poor vs the seemingly uncaring attitudes of the wealthy and how laws seem to be made often to appease only the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else.
Taking on such difficult subject matter without becoming overly preachy was a strong point of the film as it not only entertained but raised some very good questions and social commentary while allowing the audience to make up their own minds.
This reminded me in many ways of the original Star Trek series as they were pioneers in taking on topics that the network censors would not allow by hiding it in the cloak of fantasy. The powers that be had little knowledge of what was being presented but those who did watch the show clearly got the message.
This was evident in the film when the tables turned on a sadistic and elite socialite which resulted in loud cheers and applause from the audience.
There has been talk that the next film in the series may be a prequel and deal with the original Purge and how it came to be. I for one would love to see more as the nature of the premise gives rise to so many stories and scenarios in one night alone, and the fact that the Purge is an annual event, and then perhaps we will see films in this series on a regular basis. If they keep up the quality of this one, then I say bring them on.
http://sknr.net/2014/07/18/the-purge-anarchy/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Carriers (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Brian and Danny grew up as two brothers who were relatively close to one another. They cherish the memories they have of Turtle Beach, a beach their family vacationed to every summer. The abandoned motel in Turtle Beach may be their best bet of surviving the highly contagious disease that now plagues the entire country and possibly the world. Not much is known about the virus other than the victims coughing up blood and bleeding from the ears as their condition worsens. Brian actually came up with a few rules that will hopefully get him, his girlfriend Bobby, his brother Danny, and Danny's friend Kate through this disease ridden world to Turtle Beach clean. The rules include avoiding the infected at all costs, disinfecting anything they've touched in the past 24 hours, and that the infected are already dead as there is no cure. You may survive if you stick to the rules, but actually abiding by them is an entirely different story.
Right off the bat, people are probably going to compare Carriers to Zombieland because of the rules. Carriers was released a full month before Zombieland, but Paramount Vantage folded upon its initial release causing its wide release to be an extremely limited one at the last minute (I think it wound up playing at only two theaters in the country). Expectations rise unintentionally in situations such as this. "This is that horror film that was practically shelved earlier this year and is finally being released." The result is a horror film that is well worth watching, but may not be entirely what you're expecting.
Carriers is more about establishing an atmosphere than anything else. Everything is abandoned and rightfully so as most people were picked off handfuls at a time by this pandemic. The entire film is more like the first half hour of 28 Days Later where Jim wakes up in an abandoned hospital and realizes how empty the streets of London are. There aren't masses of the infected running around lusting for brains or wanting to tear humans apart in Carriers. The story follows these four friends as they journey across the country to this supposed sanctuary where they hope to tough it out until this disease runs its course. Carriers is more of a slow burn as things turn from bad to worse very slowly and snowball as the film goes on.
Chris Pine is really the drawing factor of the film. His role as Brian is kind of like a more intense version of his role as Kirk in Star Trek from earlier this year. Brian comes off as an inconsiderate prick the first half of the film and seems to only do things that benefit himself. The second half is where his character gets interesting though. The speech he gives Danny about their parents and telling Danny that he only told him what he wanted to hear is the turning point for Brian. Chris Pine shines as things begin to roll downhill for Brian as his emotions take center stage and his true demeanor is revealed.
Everything else in the film pretty much feels like routine manuevers when it comes to films revolving around viral outbreaks as some main characters contract the disease, they resort to drastic measures to survive, and begin to question their humanity along the way. The most disappointing part of the film is the ending as things just seem to kind of stop without much of a resolution. It seems like films like this either end this way or have a really depressing ending and that's its biggest flaw. Movie buffs who have seen films concerning pandemics already have a rough idea of how the film is going to end and it's about time to mix that up a bit. There's got to be a decent way to end the film that offers something a bit different that could wrap everything up until that point, but also leave enough room open for a sequel if need be.
Carriers may be a bit slow at first and doesn't really offer anything you probably haven't seen before in a film like this, but is still worth seeing for Chris Pine's performance. It's kind of a more serious take on Zombieland without actual zombies running or stumbling around with an atmosphere similar to the one established in Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. If you're a fan of films involving a virus that has wiped out most of the human population, then this is still worth a watch.
Right off the bat, people are probably going to compare Carriers to Zombieland because of the rules. Carriers was released a full month before Zombieland, but Paramount Vantage folded upon its initial release causing its wide release to be an extremely limited one at the last minute (I think it wound up playing at only two theaters in the country). Expectations rise unintentionally in situations such as this. "This is that horror film that was practically shelved earlier this year and is finally being released." The result is a horror film that is well worth watching, but may not be entirely what you're expecting.
Carriers is more about establishing an atmosphere than anything else. Everything is abandoned and rightfully so as most people were picked off handfuls at a time by this pandemic. The entire film is more like the first half hour of 28 Days Later where Jim wakes up in an abandoned hospital and realizes how empty the streets of London are. There aren't masses of the infected running around lusting for brains or wanting to tear humans apart in Carriers. The story follows these four friends as they journey across the country to this supposed sanctuary where they hope to tough it out until this disease runs its course. Carriers is more of a slow burn as things turn from bad to worse very slowly and snowball as the film goes on.
Chris Pine is really the drawing factor of the film. His role as Brian is kind of like a more intense version of his role as Kirk in Star Trek from earlier this year. Brian comes off as an inconsiderate prick the first half of the film and seems to only do things that benefit himself. The second half is where his character gets interesting though. The speech he gives Danny about their parents and telling Danny that he only told him what he wanted to hear is the turning point for Brian. Chris Pine shines as things begin to roll downhill for Brian as his emotions take center stage and his true demeanor is revealed.
Everything else in the film pretty much feels like routine manuevers when it comes to films revolving around viral outbreaks as some main characters contract the disease, they resort to drastic measures to survive, and begin to question their humanity along the way. The most disappointing part of the film is the ending as things just seem to kind of stop without much of a resolution. It seems like films like this either end this way or have a really depressing ending and that's its biggest flaw. Movie buffs who have seen films concerning pandemics already have a rough idea of how the film is going to end and it's about time to mix that up a bit. There's got to be a decent way to end the film that offers something a bit different that could wrap everything up until that point, but also leave enough room open for a sequel if need be.
Carriers may be a bit slow at first and doesn't really offer anything you probably haven't seen before in a film like this, but is still worth seeing for Chris Pine's performance. It's kind of a more serious take on Zombieland without actual zombies running or stumbling around with an atmosphere similar to the one established in Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. If you're a fan of films involving a virus that has wiped out most of the human population, then this is still worth a watch.