Search
Search results
Andy K (10823 KP) rated The Wicker Man (1973) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
Where Is Rowan Morrison?
Trying to get into the "horror mood" this year I thought I would revisit a "cult classic" which I hadn't seen in 20+ years and it is still as haunting as I remember.
Police Sergeant Howie arrives to a small island community in search of a missing girl. His questions are immediately met with shrugs and denials any of the locals know the girl. He then visits the local pub where he quickly begins to surmise the situation is not what it seems and he is not being told the truth. The local barkeep sets him up with a meal and a room while his daughter sings a haunting song along with the rest of the barroom customers.
The next day Howie searches further about the island, questions more locals, visits the schoolhouse where he hears young girls being taught the finer points of the penis, but learns little about the fate of the missing girl. Eventually, he believes the girl has been murdered under suspicious circumstances and goes to visit the matriarch of the area, Lord Summerisle.
He finds out about the pagan beliefs the island dwellers believe as well as the history of Summerisle's ancestors when they first visited the island. He continues to see disturbing happenings around town including young naked girls dancing, singing and jumping through a fire as well as people wearing masks.
Once the "final reveal" has happened, he realizes he has been beguiled all along and the cult has a fate for him already planned out.
In watching some behind the scenes footage, Christopher Lee said this film is one of his personal favorites. He was eager to break out of the same old "Dracula" formula films he had been doing in the 1970s and accepted this part not knowing much about it ahead of time. The part was written for him in mind. Lee longtime film companion, Peter Cushing, was originally supposed to portray Sergeant Howie, but couldn't due to schedule conflicts.
Edward Woodward actually dons the part of Howie in a very interesting way. He makes the audience believe his naivety about his surroundings at the onset and slowly lets you figure things out along with him as the film goes. He actually did not even want to see the "Wicker Man" set until he filmed it so he could be surprised and his terror would be genuine.
This is the part Christopher Lee was born to play. Modern audiences will know him only from Star Wars and Lord of the Rings; however, he was one of the "Masters of the Macabre" in the 1970s and 1980s completing a ton of horror films most of which are cheesy but still worth watching due to their style and his charisma. He was just perfect for this role since you can believe almost anything he says and only watch in disbelief as he marches down the street dancing and singing with the rest of his cult members toward their final ritual.
I'm sure coming from the US, I don't know some of the history and wild popularity this film has had and continues to have in the UK, but it is still one of my favorites.
Police Sergeant Howie arrives to a small island community in search of a missing girl. His questions are immediately met with shrugs and denials any of the locals know the girl. He then visits the local pub where he quickly begins to surmise the situation is not what it seems and he is not being told the truth. The local barkeep sets him up with a meal and a room while his daughter sings a haunting song along with the rest of the barroom customers.
The next day Howie searches further about the island, questions more locals, visits the schoolhouse where he hears young girls being taught the finer points of the penis, but learns little about the fate of the missing girl. Eventually, he believes the girl has been murdered under suspicious circumstances and goes to visit the matriarch of the area, Lord Summerisle.
He finds out about the pagan beliefs the island dwellers believe as well as the history of Summerisle's ancestors when they first visited the island. He continues to see disturbing happenings around town including young naked girls dancing, singing and jumping through a fire as well as people wearing masks.
Once the "final reveal" has happened, he realizes he has been beguiled all along and the cult has a fate for him already planned out.
In watching some behind the scenes footage, Christopher Lee said this film is one of his personal favorites. He was eager to break out of the same old "Dracula" formula films he had been doing in the 1970s and accepted this part not knowing much about it ahead of time. The part was written for him in mind. Lee longtime film companion, Peter Cushing, was originally supposed to portray Sergeant Howie, but couldn't due to schedule conflicts.
Edward Woodward actually dons the part of Howie in a very interesting way. He makes the audience believe his naivety about his surroundings at the onset and slowly lets you figure things out along with him as the film goes. He actually did not even want to see the "Wicker Man" set until he filmed it so he could be surprised and his terror would be genuine.
This is the part Christopher Lee was born to play. Modern audiences will know him only from Star Wars and Lord of the Rings; however, he was one of the "Masters of the Macabre" in the 1970s and 1980s completing a ton of horror films most of which are cheesy but still worth watching due to their style and his charisma. He was just perfect for this role since you can believe almost anything he says and only watch in disbelief as he marches down the street dancing and singing with the rest of his cult members toward their final ritual.
I'm sure coming from the US, I don't know some of the history and wild popularity this film has had and continues to have in the UK, but it is still one of my favorites.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Raya and the Last Dragon (2021) in Movies
Sep 25, 2021
Strong Animation and Voice Work overcome "Standard" Plot
One of the first films to be released (both in theaters and on-line) during the pandemic, RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON came and went quickly - certainly ignored in the movie theaters, and with very little fanfare on-line.
And that’s too bad for RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON is a fun, fantastical and visually rich tapestry that weaves together strong characters, a good lesson and enough action and comedy to keep young and old alike engaged throughout.
RAYA tells the story of the land of Kumandra, a realm that was inspired by Southeast Asian countries (such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia) a land that is split into 5 parts that each face the same threat, but instead of banding together to fight this threat, they are splintered and selfish and look out only for their own - with little to no regard of the consequences to others.
Sound familiar? While the film was imagined and realized before the pandemic, the themes of this film reverberate strongly in this post-pandemic world that we live in.
Into this world drops Raya who, when betrayed by one she sees as a friend, sets out on a quest to find the last dragon and unify the 5 lands. It’s a typical “quest film” but one that is told with such heart and charm - with strong voice characters and beautiful animation - that I was won over by it.
Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico in the latest STAR WARS trilogy) brings Raya’s voice to life and it is a one that is embodied with hope, naivete and strength and really makes you root for her character. The voice work by the likes of Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS), Benedict Wong (DR. STRANGE), DANIEL DAE KIM (TV’s LOST) and Sandra OH (TV’s GREY’S ANATOMY) are all as equally strong and nuanced and draws you into each of their characters and the story.
And then there is Awkwafina (SHANG-CHI) as the voice of The Last Dragon - she is on another level. It is not hyperbole to say that this voicework/character is on a par with David Spade’s work as Kuzco in THE EMPEROR’S NEW GROOVE and much like Spade, she ad-libbed much of her dialogue. It’s not quite at the level of Robin Williams in ALADDIN, but it’s in that ballpark - it is that good. This character makes or breaks this film and AWKWAFINA nails it - and makes the film.
This film is a “non-Musical” and I think that works well here. While this choice may turn off some families from viewing, this choice makes it a stronger film and is the right selection.
And then, there is the animation, which is even more impressive considering it was created from the animators in their homes during the pandemic. RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON is a visual feast, weaving imagery and beautifully animated scenes throughout - I applaud those that made this incredibly beautiful film under such adverse conditions, it is a triumph.
All-in-all RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON is well worth checking out, despite the plot being rather “standard”, the themes, characters, voice work and animation are all top notch - what one has come to expect from Disney Animation.
Letter Grade: A- (did I mention that the plot is rather “standard”)
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that’s too bad for RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON is a fun, fantastical and visually rich tapestry that weaves together strong characters, a good lesson and enough action and comedy to keep young and old alike engaged throughout.
RAYA tells the story of the land of Kumandra, a realm that was inspired by Southeast Asian countries (such as Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia) a land that is split into 5 parts that each face the same threat, but instead of banding together to fight this threat, they are splintered and selfish and look out only for their own - with little to no regard of the consequences to others.
Sound familiar? While the film was imagined and realized before the pandemic, the themes of this film reverberate strongly in this post-pandemic world that we live in.
Into this world drops Raya who, when betrayed by one she sees as a friend, sets out on a quest to find the last dragon and unify the 5 lands. It’s a typical “quest film” but one that is told with such heart and charm - with strong voice characters and beautiful animation - that I was won over by it.
Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico in the latest STAR WARS trilogy) brings Raya’s voice to life and it is a one that is embodied with hope, naivete and strength and really makes you root for her character. The voice work by the likes of Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS), Benedict Wong (DR. STRANGE), DANIEL DAE KIM (TV’s LOST) and Sandra OH (TV’s GREY’S ANATOMY) are all as equally strong and nuanced and draws you into each of their characters and the story.
And then there is Awkwafina (SHANG-CHI) as the voice of The Last Dragon - she is on another level. It is not hyperbole to say that this voicework/character is on a par with David Spade’s work as Kuzco in THE EMPEROR’S NEW GROOVE and much like Spade, she ad-libbed much of her dialogue. It’s not quite at the level of Robin Williams in ALADDIN, but it’s in that ballpark - it is that good. This character makes or breaks this film and AWKWAFINA nails it - and makes the film.
This film is a “non-Musical” and I think that works well here. While this choice may turn off some families from viewing, this choice makes it a stronger film and is the right selection.
And then, there is the animation, which is even more impressive considering it was created from the animators in their homes during the pandemic. RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON is a visual feast, weaving imagery and beautifully animated scenes throughout - I applaud those that made this incredibly beautiful film under such adverse conditions, it is a triumph.
All-in-all RAYA AND THE LAST DRAGON is well worth checking out, despite the plot being rather “standard”, the themes, characters, voice work and animation are all top notch - what one has come to expect from Disney Animation.
Letter Grade: A- (did I mention that the plot is rather “standard”)
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Social Media involvement in political manipulation? Don’t be ridiculous!
Set in the near future “The Circle” tells a horror story of the social media age involving an omnipotent American corporate, pitched somewhere between being Facebook-like and Google-like (note, lawyers, I just said “like”!) Emma Watson (“Beauty and the Beast“) plays young intern Mae who, partly through the aid of family friend Annie (Karen Gillan, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Doctor Who”) but mostly through her own aptitude, lands a foothold job in customer services for the company. With the lush corporate campus fast becoming home, Mae is quickly singled out as having “executive potential” by the charismatic CEO Bailey (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“) and his more taciturn sidekick Stenton (US comedian Patton Oswalt).
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Large and Small on screen, but just ends up middling.
So, for the first time we divided last night at the cinema. I went off to watch “Ant-Man and the Wasp” and my wife – not a Marvel fan – went to see “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again” (for the THIRD time!). Incidentally, Mamma Mia 2 seems to be the movie phenomenon of the summer, taking over from “The Greatest Showman” as the movie phenomenon of the winter. It’s been out three weeks now and the shows are still selling out, with people (mostly groups of women) being turned away at the ticket desk. I can see this one running in theatres until October, when they bring out a sing-a-long edition and it carries on running ‘til Christmas. Extraordinary.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tiny People, Big Mess.
From the trailer this film looked quirky, funny and interesting and has been on my “looking forward to” list for many months. Oh dear, what a let down.
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A tale as old as time
Whichever big wig down at Disney decided it would be a good idea to remake all of their animated classics using live-action is surely due a massive promotion. The studio’s reputation is soaring after the acquisition of Marvel and Lucasfilm and this new way of thinking is paying off at the box office.
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Last year’s The Jungle Book earned just shy of $1billion worldwide, their Marvel Cinematic Universe has taken upwards of $5billion and don’t get me started on Star Wars. Continuing the studio’s trend of remaking their animated features is Beauty & the Beast, but does this modern day reimagining of a fairly modern classic conjure up memories of 1991?
Belle (Emma Watson), a bright, beautiful and independent young woman, is taken prisoner by a beast (Dan Stevens) in its castle. Despite her fears, she befriends the castle’s enchanted staff including Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) and Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and tries her best to learn to look beyond the beast’s hideous exterior, allowing her to recognise the kind heart and soul of the true prince that hides on the inside.
There were gasps of shock when Harry Potter actress Emma Watson was cast as Belle, but thankfully after sitting through 129 minutes of her singing and dancing, there is no reason to be concerned. She slots into the role of a Disney princess with ease, though it’s still incredibly difficult to see her as anything but the talented witch from Hogwarts.
The rest of the cast is very good with the exception of Ewan McGregor’s dreadful French accent. It can be forgiven however because the sense of nostalgia that the castle’s staff bring to the table is wonderful. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Stanley Tucci all lend their voices with Thompson taking over from Angela Lansbury beautifully. Her rendition of the iconic titular song brings goose bumps.
Elsewhere, Luke Evans is an excellent choice to play villainous Gaston. It’s hard to imagine anyone better to play the gluttonous womaniser and Josh Gad is sublime as his sidekick.
Dan Stevens’ transformation into Beast is one that’s a little bit harder to judge. There is no doubt he is up to the task of playing this iconic character, but the limits of current motion capture technology can sometimes render him a little playdoh like. There are fleeting moments when the illusion is shattered because of something as trivial as the way his fur moves.
Nevertheless, the rest of the special effects are absolutely top notch. The costumes and the set design all integrate perfectly with the naturally heavy use of CGI to create a film that harks back to its predecessor in every way.
Whilst not as dark as last year’s The Jungle Book, Beauty & the Beast is still a deeply disturbing film at times, made all the more so by its recreation in live-action. Young children may find it a troubling watch, a reason why the BBFC has awarded it a PG rating rather than the typical U that most other Disney features receive.
Overall, Beauty & the Beast is a faithful recreation of its 1991 predecessor and that comes with its own set of challenges. The animated version is widely regarded as one of Disney’s best films, so director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, Twilight) had massive shoes to fill. For the most part, he’s succeeded in crafting a visually stunning and poignant movie that’s only drawbacks are its length and poor motion capture. Much better than Cinderella, but not quite as ground-breaking as The Jungle Book, it’s a lovely watch for all the family.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/17/a-tale-as-old-as-time-beauty-the-beast-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jurassic World (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Trip down memory lane
Can you believe it’s been 14 years since genetically modified dinosaurs rampaged across our screens in Joe Johnston’s underwhelming Jurassic Park III?
After being stuck in development hell for over a decade, Steven Spielberg handpicked indie director Colin Trevorrow to helm the fourth instalment of the popular adventure franchise, Jurassic World, but can it return the much-loved series to form?
Man of the moment Chris Pratt (Guardians of the Galaxy), Bryce Dallas Howard (The Village), Ty Simpkins (Iron Man 3) and Omar Sy (X-Men: Days of Future Past) lead a cast of characters in a visually spectacular film that whilst paying homage to 1993’s Jurassic Park, lacks a little of the original’s soul.
Jurassic World is now a fully functioning theme park taken over from John Hammond’s InGen by Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan in a pleasingly comedic performance). Welcoming over 20,000 visitors a day, the park sees the need to create something bigger, louder and with more teeth to sustain visitor interest – the Indominus Rex.
Naturally, this doesn’t go quite to plan.
The performances from all of the cast are on-point with Bryce Dallas Howard being a particular highlight. There were worries that her ability would match Tea Leoni from Jurassic Park III rather than Laura Dern’s brilliant Ellie Sattler from the original. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
Her story arc is particularly intriguing if predictable with her uptight corporate image being shed throughout the film’s succinct 123 minute running time.
Chris Pratt proves why he is the man every director wants to work with. His less comedic side comes out in Jurassic World and proves that he has the acting chops to go with his good looks.
Vincent D’Onofrio stars as the obligatory villain but his side story is never really explored – possibly setting up for a sequel should the film perform well at the box office and with it making up 90% of global ticket sales this weekend, things look promising.
Music wise, Jurassic World treads a very careful path. Make no mistake, this is a standalone movie, but the references to the original are there for all to hear. Michael Giacchino, one of the best composers of the moment, takes over from Don Davis of Jurassic Park III and provides the series with its best score since John Williams’ original.
Special effects too are top notch with the park looking stunning and the dinosaurs, on the whole, faring the same way. There are a couple of moments where things start to look a little video game like, but this never takes away from the beauty of this film.
Unfortunately, whilst the last 30 minutes are breath-taking, edge of your seat stuff, it’s difficult to differentiate Jurassic World from the plethora of high budget blockbusters that litter the cinema these days and whilst Trevorrow chooses references to the original carefully, it lacks a little of that film’s soul and ultimately charm.
Overall, Jurassic World is better than the majority of blockbusters that have come and gone from cinemas over the last year and it tops The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III to become a sequel worthy of the original.
Yes it’s not perfect, with the gorgeous finale lacking substance, but after waiting 14 years it comes pretty darn close and will no doubt be, along with Star Wars: Episode VII, one of the most memorable films of the noughties.
Do you remember seeing Jurassic Park for the first time? That’s the question everyone asks, and whilst Jurassic World won’t be making anywhere near the same impact, it’s a film worthy of the brand.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/14/a-trip-down-memory-lane-jurassic-world-review/
After being stuck in development hell for over a decade, Steven Spielberg handpicked indie director Colin Trevorrow to helm the fourth instalment of the popular adventure franchise, Jurassic World, but can it return the much-loved series to form?
Man of the moment Chris Pratt (Guardians of the Galaxy), Bryce Dallas Howard (The Village), Ty Simpkins (Iron Man 3) and Omar Sy (X-Men: Days of Future Past) lead a cast of characters in a visually spectacular film that whilst paying homage to 1993’s Jurassic Park, lacks a little of the original’s soul.
Jurassic World is now a fully functioning theme park taken over from John Hammond’s InGen by Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan in a pleasingly comedic performance). Welcoming over 20,000 visitors a day, the park sees the need to create something bigger, louder and with more teeth to sustain visitor interest – the Indominus Rex.
Naturally, this doesn’t go quite to plan.
The performances from all of the cast are on-point with Bryce Dallas Howard being a particular highlight. There were worries that her ability would match Tea Leoni from Jurassic Park III rather than Laura Dern’s brilliant Ellie Sattler from the original. Thankfully, this isn’t the case.
Her story arc is particularly intriguing if predictable with her uptight corporate image being shed throughout the film’s succinct 123 minute running time.
Chris Pratt proves why he is the man every director wants to work with. His less comedic side comes out in Jurassic World and proves that he has the acting chops to go with his good looks.
Vincent D’Onofrio stars as the obligatory villain but his side story is never really explored – possibly setting up for a sequel should the film perform well at the box office and with it making up 90% of global ticket sales this weekend, things look promising.
Music wise, Jurassic World treads a very careful path. Make no mistake, this is a standalone movie, but the references to the original are there for all to hear. Michael Giacchino, one of the best composers of the moment, takes over from Don Davis of Jurassic Park III and provides the series with its best score since John Williams’ original.
Special effects too are top notch with the park looking stunning and the dinosaurs, on the whole, faring the same way. There are a couple of moments where things start to look a little video game like, but this never takes away from the beauty of this film.
Unfortunately, whilst the last 30 minutes are breath-taking, edge of your seat stuff, it’s difficult to differentiate Jurassic World from the plethora of high budget blockbusters that litter the cinema these days and whilst Trevorrow chooses references to the original carefully, it lacks a little of that film’s soul and ultimately charm.
Overall, Jurassic World is better than the majority of blockbusters that have come and gone from cinemas over the last year and it tops The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III to become a sequel worthy of the original.
Yes it’s not perfect, with the gorgeous finale lacking substance, but after waiting 14 years it comes pretty darn close and will no doubt be, along with Star Wars: Episode VII, one of the most memorable films of the noughties.
Do you remember seeing Jurassic Park for the first time? That’s the question everyone asks, and whilst Jurassic World won’t be making anywhere near the same impact, it’s a film worthy of the brand.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/14/a-trip-down-memory-lane-jurassic-world-review/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2019 (Updated Jan 28, 2019)
A Middling Reboot
This is another movie from late 2018 that I am only just getting a chance to see. After my girlfriend and I sat through this one, she turned to me and asked what I thought of it. In response, I just shrugged my shoulders and went, "It was alright." That is genuinely the best way that I can think of to sum up my feeling on this film.
It's a mediocre action movie based around the basic concept of the old tale of Robin Hood. It is extremely cheesy and has bags of whatever the opposite of subtle is. It tries to tell a gritty, 'Year One,' type of story for the character and treats the Robin Hood moniker as a dual identity for Robin Loxley, which draws heavy comparisons to the Batman/Bruce Wayne dynamic. Unfortunately, not much of it lands due to the lack of risk-taking involved.
The movie also feels weirdly dated, especially considering that it's only a few months old. There are an abundance of overindulgent slow motion shots in the style of 300; a movie that was 12 years old at the time of this movie's release. The use of green-screen in this film is actually pretty atrocious judging by today's standards and actually might be some of the worst out of any 2018 movie I saw. This is noticeable throughout the whole movie, but is especially rough-looking during a carriage chase that happens around two thirds into the film.
The cast are all phoning it in as well. Taron Egerton does nothing special with the lead role and Ben Mendlesohn hams it up as the Sheriff Of Nottingham, doing pretty much the same villainous shlock that he did in Ready Player One and Star Wars: Rogue One, way to not get typecast Mendo!
That's the other weird thing about this movie, is that it's not sure what era it wants to be set in. Some of the accents, language and costumes are suitable for the period that the movie is set in, but other elements and other lines and costumes etc feel like they are from 2018, the year that this movie was made. The end result that they were aiming for may have been a sort of rolling timeline that transcends the days of the Crusades that the movie is set in but what we get is just a scattered mess.
There were a few positives in this thing. Some cool shots, Some of the stunt archery is, (while super unrealistic,) pretty cool to watch. I know that 'Real Life Legolas,' Lars Andersen was hired to teach the cast some archery and I believe he helped out with the action choreography as well, which is pretty cool. There are also some glimpses of creativity in some of the shots. One in particular that stood out to me was a shot that gradually panned out from behind a solitary soldiers shield to show the intensity and scale of the battle that was taking place. It's just unfortunate that in so many other places in the movie, all we get is lazy, generic camera angles that add nothing to the scene taking place.
Overall, this is an okay action romp. Don't go in expecting anything of substance or you will most definitely come away disappointed. Though, if all that you are looking for is something to stick on in the background while you do other things or if you are just after an easy, straightforward action adventure popcorn flick, then you could probably do worse than this.
It's a mediocre action movie based around the basic concept of the old tale of Robin Hood. It is extremely cheesy and has bags of whatever the opposite of subtle is. It tries to tell a gritty, 'Year One,' type of story for the character and treats the Robin Hood moniker as a dual identity for Robin Loxley, which draws heavy comparisons to the Batman/Bruce Wayne dynamic. Unfortunately, not much of it lands due to the lack of risk-taking involved.
The movie also feels weirdly dated, especially considering that it's only a few months old. There are an abundance of overindulgent slow motion shots in the style of 300; a movie that was 12 years old at the time of this movie's release. The use of green-screen in this film is actually pretty atrocious judging by today's standards and actually might be some of the worst out of any 2018 movie I saw. This is noticeable throughout the whole movie, but is especially rough-looking during a carriage chase that happens around two thirds into the film.
The cast are all phoning it in as well. Taron Egerton does nothing special with the lead role and Ben Mendlesohn hams it up as the Sheriff Of Nottingham, doing pretty much the same villainous shlock that he did in Ready Player One and Star Wars: Rogue One, way to not get typecast Mendo!
That's the other weird thing about this movie, is that it's not sure what era it wants to be set in. Some of the accents, language and costumes are suitable for the period that the movie is set in, but other elements and other lines and costumes etc feel like they are from 2018, the year that this movie was made. The end result that they were aiming for may have been a sort of rolling timeline that transcends the days of the Crusades that the movie is set in but what we get is just a scattered mess.
There were a few positives in this thing. Some cool shots, Some of the stunt archery is, (while super unrealistic,) pretty cool to watch. I know that 'Real Life Legolas,' Lars Andersen was hired to teach the cast some archery and I believe he helped out with the action choreography as well, which is pretty cool. There are also some glimpses of creativity in some of the shots. One in particular that stood out to me was a shot that gradually panned out from behind a solitary soldiers shield to show the intensity and scale of the battle that was taking place. It's just unfortunate that in so many other places in the movie, all we get is lazy, generic camera angles that add nothing to the scene taking place.
Overall, this is an okay action romp. Don't go in expecting anything of substance or you will most definitely come away disappointed. Though, if all that you are looking for is something to stick on in the background while you do other things or if you are just after an easy, straightforward action adventure popcorn flick, then you could probably do worse than this.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Poltergeist (1982) in Movies
Oct 25, 2019
The TV People!
When the Freeling family moved into their suburban California home, little did they know what they were getting themselves into! Minor oddities began showing themselves like chairs stacking in the kitchen lights flashing or even being pulled across the kitchen floor. It felt like a "tickle". The situation quickly grows more severe as a tree outside the children's room plunges inside and tries to ingest son, Robbie. Simultaneously, a gateway of sorts opens in the children's room eventually pulling the entire contents into its closet vortex including youngest daughter, Carol Anne.
Parents Steve and Diane have little option but to accept "professional" help. The Ghostbusters were not available since that film was not released until 2 years later. Instead, they convince a doctor and paranormal scientists to enter there home to record some of these events and provide some answers if they can. Eventually, the Dr. summons a spiritual medium who says someone must enter the void and rescue Carol Anne from the evil which surrounds her. After apparent success, the house is considered "clean".
I wonder if it will stay that way?
Over the years lots of interesting facts about the film and production have emerged including the Poltergeist "curse" since a prominent cast member passed away after each film was completed. Tragically, oldest daughter, Dana, played by actress Dominique Dunne, was strangled by her boyfriend and pronounced brain dead a few days later.
Spielberg was hot off Raiders of the Lost Ark at the time so was busy with one production after another. Immediately following the wrap of filming of Poltergeist he filmed E. T. The Extra Terrestrial, but was still heavily involved in post production. It has been widely speculated Spielberg even directed some of Poltergieist due to having control issues or maybe not liking what credited director Tobe Hooper was doing.
Drew Barrymore auditioned for Carol Ann, but didn't get the role. Obviously, she was remembered and given her breakout role in E.T. when it was also released in 1982.
So much of the movie is still remembered including the menacing tree, the clown scene with Robbie and a rich, interesting screenplay Spielberg himself wrote. The line "They're Here" is listed on the AFI's 100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES list at #69. As with a lot of Spielberg's early work, the affect of slowing building tension and the starting out "normal" and moving toward higher tension gradually is a staple and works amazingly well here.
I will admit some of the optical effects used now look a bit dated by today's standards of film perfection; however, does not diminish the scares, creeps or overall feel of this horror classic one bit. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is haunting, foreboding and captures the magic of the Freeling household perfectly.
I love the production design in the house especially the children's bedroom. There must have been some inside joke between Spielberg and George Lucas who had just collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark as their room is filled with Star Wars licensing of every type (so was mine as a kid) including action figures, bedding, movie posters and even clothing. I do draw the line at the Alien poster on the wall, through, as I don't think a 5 and 8 year old would have seen that film so young.
One other funny thing which us older folk take for granted is a network actually going off the air and showing just snow. This fact happened every day before the days of the 24 television cycle and would be completely foreign to the younger generation. Oh how things have changed.
I revisit this film often and is one of my Halloween traditions every few years. I should probably upgrade my 20 years old DVD copy for a fresh Blu Ray. Add it to the list! 😜
Parents Steve and Diane have little option but to accept "professional" help. The Ghostbusters were not available since that film was not released until 2 years later. Instead, they convince a doctor and paranormal scientists to enter there home to record some of these events and provide some answers if they can. Eventually, the Dr. summons a spiritual medium who says someone must enter the void and rescue Carol Anne from the evil which surrounds her. After apparent success, the house is considered "clean".
I wonder if it will stay that way?
Over the years lots of interesting facts about the film and production have emerged including the Poltergeist "curse" since a prominent cast member passed away after each film was completed. Tragically, oldest daughter, Dana, played by actress Dominique Dunne, was strangled by her boyfriend and pronounced brain dead a few days later.
Spielberg was hot off Raiders of the Lost Ark at the time so was busy with one production after another. Immediately following the wrap of filming of Poltergeist he filmed E. T. The Extra Terrestrial, but was still heavily involved in post production. It has been widely speculated Spielberg even directed some of Poltergieist due to having control issues or maybe not liking what credited director Tobe Hooper was doing.
Drew Barrymore auditioned for Carol Ann, but didn't get the role. Obviously, she was remembered and given her breakout role in E.T. when it was also released in 1982.
So much of the movie is still remembered including the menacing tree, the clown scene with Robbie and a rich, interesting screenplay Spielberg himself wrote. The line "They're Here" is listed on the AFI's 100 YEARS...100 MOVIE QUOTES list at #69. As with a lot of Spielberg's early work, the affect of slowing building tension and the starting out "normal" and moving toward higher tension gradually is a staple and works amazingly well here.
I will admit some of the optical effects used now look a bit dated by today's standards of film perfection; however, does not diminish the scares, creeps or overall feel of this horror classic one bit. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is haunting, foreboding and captures the magic of the Freeling household perfectly.
I love the production design in the house especially the children's bedroom. There must have been some inside joke between Spielberg and George Lucas who had just collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark as their room is filled with Star Wars licensing of every type (so was mine as a kid) including action figures, bedding, movie posters and even clothing. I do draw the line at the Alien poster on the wall, through, as I don't think a 5 and 8 year old would have seen that film so young.
One other funny thing which us older folk take for granted is a network actually going off the air and showing just snow. This fact happened every day before the days of the 24 television cycle and would be completely foreign to the younger generation. Oh how things have changed.
I revisit this film often and is one of my Halloween traditions every few years. I should probably upgrade my 20 years old DVD copy for a fresh Blu Ray. Add it to the list! 😜
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Inferno is the latest thriller based on the novels of Dan Brown that follow the fictional character of Robert Langdon who is a world renowned symbologist (study of symbols). Like The DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons before them, Inferno follows mostly the same story arch and structure.
Tom Hanks has reprised his role as Robert Langdon (this time with an appropriate haircut) and once again he travels around to beautiful locations of European art and architecture with a young woman by his side, trying to solve a series of clues in order to stop a billionaire madman who believes humanity is a parasite and his plague inferno is the cure. If this sounds like a film you have seen before, it is because you have. In the other two movies that have come before it
Once again, audiences will enjoy being whisked around to see beautiful cities, art, and architecture to solve historical literary clues as the film plays out like a late middle ages travel lesson. These are all good things.
The bad is that during the first half of the film, Robert Langdon has amnesia due to a blow to the head. He cannot remember much which of what he was doing, which makes him a less compelling character. Throughout the series of films, Langdon has used his “dizzying intellect” to solve clues the brightest minds could not solve. In Inferno, that “super power” is taken away and we are left with an average, middle aged man, who is somehow able to solve impossible puzzles and clues while being chased by seedy underground characters and the world health organization. Who for the purposes of this film, seem to have become the FBI/CIA in one. This setup does not work and makes for a boring first half of the film Eventually Langdon regains his memory and the film picks up a bit from there, but for some it might be too late.
As far as the performances go, Tom Hanks delivers a watchable, likable performance, much to his credit considering that the character of Robert Langdon is a relatively boring protagonist. Meanwhile Ben Foster plays the somewhat forgettable billionaire madman (Bertrand Zobrist) in a somewhat forgettable way. It is a shame because perhaps if we had a chance to understand the nuance of his character, like I assume can be done in the books, he would have felt like a more compelling character and caused us to think if he was to be on the right side of history. Unfortunately, any nuance from the book does not translate well to the film adaptation. But not all is lost. For me, the bright spot of the film was Felicity Jones who plays the gifted doctor Sienna Brooks. Brooks, who in helping Langdon with his injury, gets swept up into game for the fate of the world. In her performance, Felicity Jones shows a transition of her emotional resonance throughout the film as her character develops and we get to understand her more, for better or worse. I am excited to see Jones continue to grow in her career and look forward to seeing her this holiday’s Star Wars Story: Rouge One. She has the ability to carry a film, let’s hope she is given the opportunity to do so.
In the end, Inferno is not a terrible film, but it is not very memorable either. Unlike the two films before it, Robert Langdon is handcuffed by an injury that doesn’t allow him to use his intellect that made him compelling before Couple that with what seems like an inspector gadget plot, where the bad guy leave a series of clues to foil his own master plan, and you end up with a “Meh” film.
Tom Hanks has reprised his role as Robert Langdon (this time with an appropriate haircut) and once again he travels around to beautiful locations of European art and architecture with a young woman by his side, trying to solve a series of clues in order to stop a billionaire madman who believes humanity is a parasite and his plague inferno is the cure. If this sounds like a film you have seen before, it is because you have. In the other two movies that have come before it
Once again, audiences will enjoy being whisked around to see beautiful cities, art, and architecture to solve historical literary clues as the film plays out like a late middle ages travel lesson. These are all good things.
The bad is that during the first half of the film, Robert Langdon has amnesia due to a blow to the head. He cannot remember much which of what he was doing, which makes him a less compelling character. Throughout the series of films, Langdon has used his “dizzying intellect” to solve clues the brightest minds could not solve. In Inferno, that “super power” is taken away and we are left with an average, middle aged man, who is somehow able to solve impossible puzzles and clues while being chased by seedy underground characters and the world health organization. Who for the purposes of this film, seem to have become the FBI/CIA in one. This setup does not work and makes for a boring first half of the film Eventually Langdon regains his memory and the film picks up a bit from there, but for some it might be too late.
As far as the performances go, Tom Hanks delivers a watchable, likable performance, much to his credit considering that the character of Robert Langdon is a relatively boring protagonist. Meanwhile Ben Foster plays the somewhat forgettable billionaire madman (Bertrand Zobrist) in a somewhat forgettable way. It is a shame because perhaps if we had a chance to understand the nuance of his character, like I assume can be done in the books, he would have felt like a more compelling character and caused us to think if he was to be on the right side of history. Unfortunately, any nuance from the book does not translate well to the film adaptation. But not all is lost. For me, the bright spot of the film was Felicity Jones who plays the gifted doctor Sienna Brooks. Brooks, who in helping Langdon with his injury, gets swept up into game for the fate of the world. In her performance, Felicity Jones shows a transition of her emotional resonance throughout the film as her character develops and we get to understand her more, for better or worse. I am excited to see Jones continue to grow in her career and look forward to seeing her this holiday’s Star Wars Story: Rouge One. She has the ability to carry a film, let’s hope she is given the opportunity to do so.
In the end, Inferno is not a terrible film, but it is not very memorable either. Unlike the two films before it, Robert Langdon is handcuffed by an injury that doesn’t allow him to use his intellect that made him compelling before Couple that with what seems like an inspector gadget plot, where the bad guy leave a series of clues to foil his own master plan, and you end up with a “Meh” film.