Search
Melanie Caldicott (6 KP) rated The Lost Apothecary in Books
Apr 29, 2021
Thanks to the publishers and NetGalley for the ARe-copy in exchange for this honest review. You can also read my review on my blog - https:roamingthroughbooks.wordpress.com
The Lost Apothecary by Sarah Penner is a novel which switches between the storylines of a female apothecary in the 1790s who sells poisons to women to kill men who have wronged them and the present day, in which Caroline happens upon a clue which leads her to investigate the apothecary’s story.
Well, the idea of an apothecary dispensing poison for women to use for murder was enticing to say the least. This book had the potential to weave a thought-provoking, adventurous tale, developing themes about womanhood, oppression and doing evil for good. Sadly, for me it did not quite meet the mark.
The narratives switch between three characters, Caroline, our present-day historian, Nella, the apothecary, and Eliza, a servant girl who becomes friends with Nella over the course of the book.
As I said, I was expecting this novel to grapple with challenging themes, which could have been very emotive and dark. Yet, it turned out to be just a bland bit of light fiction never dwelling on anything for too long, skimming over the surface of most of the characters, their motives and their reactions and lacking depth on any of the parallel-running plotlines.
It is surprising how a book surrounding multiple murders, historical medicine and herbalism and women trapped in marriages with infidels, letches and rapists could be quite so vanilla. It was a pleasant enough read, but lacked the substance I was hoping for.
I found Nella, the apothecary to be a bit of an enigma. We do learn about her back story and gain some insight into her motives for dispensing the poisons. However, for a woman who was resourceful enough to construct the whole clandestine operation we meet her in a weakened state and I grew frustrated with how she seemed to fall into an oblivious kind of dream-like manner becoming swept along by circumstance with no clear influence on the events or people around her.
Eliza, was a naïve girl who met Nella whilst running an errand for her mistress. It is not really clear why the friendship between Nella and Eliza develops, it seems to be more for the convenience of the plot than due to real concrete reasoning. However, an intimacy develops between them which has the potential to bring new colour to the characters. But yet again, Penner seems to skim the surface of going to any depths and I was left feeling robbed of any insight into the emotional and kindred aspects of their friendship.
Finally, Caroline’s story in the present day brought a different perspective to the themes of womanhood running through this book. She parallels the wronged women of the 18th century by escaping to London on a trip she was supposed to take with her husband to celebrate their tenth wedding anniversary, but was instead travelling alone having discovered her husband had been having an affair.
I initially enjoyed Caroline’s historical investigations as they took her to The British Library and researching documents and newspapers there. As an avid genealogist I appreciated the details Penner gives about the sources of Caroline’s research and the challenges of finding the truth from historical documents.
Yet, again her story became somewhat contrived. It seemed unlikely that she would make some of the discoveries she did and her investigation became constructed around coincidence and unrealistic serendipity. Even the parallel storylines surrounding her relationship and those from the apothecary’s timeline seemed somewhat silly and phoney.
For me, the conclusion of the book yet again did not fully reconcile itself and therefore left me unmoved and feeling somewhat apathetic about the ending and the novel as a whole.
The Lost Apothecary by Sarah Penner is a novel which switches between the storylines of a female apothecary in the 1790s who sells poisons to women to kill men who have wronged them and the present day, in which Caroline happens upon a clue which leads her to investigate the apothecary’s story.
Well, the idea of an apothecary dispensing poison for women to use for murder was enticing to say the least. This book had the potential to weave a thought-provoking, adventurous tale, developing themes about womanhood, oppression and doing evil for good. Sadly, for me it did not quite meet the mark.
The narratives switch between three characters, Caroline, our present-day historian, Nella, the apothecary, and Eliza, a servant girl who becomes friends with Nella over the course of the book.
As I said, I was expecting this novel to grapple with challenging themes, which could have been very emotive and dark. Yet, it turned out to be just a bland bit of light fiction never dwelling on anything for too long, skimming over the surface of most of the characters, their motives and their reactions and lacking depth on any of the parallel-running plotlines.
It is surprising how a book surrounding multiple murders, historical medicine and herbalism and women trapped in marriages with infidels, letches and rapists could be quite so vanilla. It was a pleasant enough read, but lacked the substance I was hoping for.
I found Nella, the apothecary to be a bit of an enigma. We do learn about her back story and gain some insight into her motives for dispensing the poisons. However, for a woman who was resourceful enough to construct the whole clandestine operation we meet her in a weakened state and I grew frustrated with how she seemed to fall into an oblivious kind of dream-like manner becoming swept along by circumstance with no clear influence on the events or people around her.
Eliza, was a naïve girl who met Nella whilst running an errand for her mistress. It is not really clear why the friendship between Nella and Eliza develops, it seems to be more for the convenience of the plot than due to real concrete reasoning. However, an intimacy develops between them which has the potential to bring new colour to the characters. But yet again, Penner seems to skim the surface of going to any depths and I was left feeling robbed of any insight into the emotional and kindred aspects of their friendship.
Finally, Caroline’s story in the present day brought a different perspective to the themes of womanhood running through this book. She parallels the wronged women of the 18th century by escaping to London on a trip she was supposed to take with her husband to celebrate their tenth wedding anniversary, but was instead travelling alone having discovered her husband had been having an affair.
I initially enjoyed Caroline’s historical investigations as they took her to The British Library and researching documents and newspapers there. As an avid genealogist I appreciated the details Penner gives about the sources of Caroline’s research and the challenges of finding the truth from historical documents.
Yet, again her story became somewhat contrived. It seemed unlikely that she would make some of the discoveries she did and her investigation became constructed around coincidence and unrealistic serendipity. Even the parallel storylines surrounding her relationship and those from the apothecary’s timeline seemed somewhat silly and phoney.
For me, the conclusion of the book yet again did not fully reconcile itself and therefore left me unmoved and feeling somewhat apathetic about the ending and the novel as a whole.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Antebellum (2020) in Movies
Apr 2, 2021
Incredibly dull and predictable
Antebellum is a 2020 thriller film from debut writer directors Gerard Bush and Christopher Renz, the trailer for which implied it was a mind bending, time travelling horror story set during the times of slavery in America. However Antebellum never manages to live up to what it promised, instead turning out to be a rather dull and predictable affair.
Antebellum opens on an unknown plantation somewhere in Louisiana, run by confederate soldiers. Janelle Monae stars as Eden, a slave we first see being beaten and branded by the confederate leader general known only as “Him” (Eric Lange). Running the plantation alongside “Him” is sadistic confederate officer Captain Jasper (Jack Huston) and his equally unpleasant wife Elizabeth (Jena Malone). Eden and her fellow slaves, including newcomer Julia (Kiersey Clemons), suffer numerous acts of brutality and oppressions at the hands of confederate soldiers, all the while trying to plan their escape amid the feeling that this plantation isn’t quite what it seems.
Then one night lying in bed after being raped by the general, Eden hears the ringing of a mobile phone and suddenly wakes up in an entirely different era, where she is now know as renowned sociologist Dr Veronica Henley. Veronica has a husband (Marque Richardson) and young daughter and is currently finishing off a book tour, with some help from her best friends Dawn (Gabourey Sidibe) and Sarah (Lily Cowles). Strange things soon start to happen, and a night out with her friends doesn’t quite the way Veronica had expected.
Antebellum’s biggest flaw, and unfortunately a rather pivotal one, is the story itself. I feel like there is meant to be an important message here, but I feel like it’s lost in the stereotypes and predictability. I’m trying to avoid spoilers, but this film is very reminiscent of one by M. Night Shyamalan and has a very similar storyline. I’d actually go so far as saying that his film was at least more interesting. Antebellum seems to have shied away from showing any real intrigue or thrill or horror at all, and other than switching from Eden to Veronica part way in, nothing of any real substance happens until the last 30 minutes of the film. There was even a lack of hints or subtleties pointing to the later plot twist throughout, and this may at least have helped make it a little less dull.
It’s a shame, as this film did have potential. It looks stunning and has been very well made, from the set design to the costumes, it all looks authentic and the score is suitably tense and dramatic too. The opening scene on the plantation alongside the score made for a very intriguing opener, although sadly this was spoilt some by the use questionable slow motion. Performance wise Gabourey Sidibe brings some much needed humour and fun as Veronica’s man hungry best friend, and Janelle Monae is captivating as both Eden and Veronica. This film is lucky Monae is such a talent, as she’s the only reason this was watchable to the very end. It’s just a shame Jena Malone’s Elizabeth is far too over the top to be a believable villain.
Antebellum is obviously trying to make an important statement about slavery and racism packaged into an unusual thriller/horror, but unlike similar films like Jordan Peele’s Get Out, it doesn’t manage to pull it off and instead flounders with a dull and predictable storyline that most could figure out well before the final act. It’s also severely lacking in any real intrigue or horror, and aside from some good performances, there’s nothing memorable about this at all.
Antebellum opens on an unknown plantation somewhere in Louisiana, run by confederate soldiers. Janelle Monae stars as Eden, a slave we first see being beaten and branded by the confederate leader general known only as “Him” (Eric Lange). Running the plantation alongside “Him” is sadistic confederate officer Captain Jasper (Jack Huston) and his equally unpleasant wife Elizabeth (Jena Malone). Eden and her fellow slaves, including newcomer Julia (Kiersey Clemons), suffer numerous acts of brutality and oppressions at the hands of confederate soldiers, all the while trying to plan their escape amid the feeling that this plantation isn’t quite what it seems.
Then one night lying in bed after being raped by the general, Eden hears the ringing of a mobile phone and suddenly wakes up in an entirely different era, where she is now know as renowned sociologist Dr Veronica Henley. Veronica has a husband (Marque Richardson) and young daughter and is currently finishing off a book tour, with some help from her best friends Dawn (Gabourey Sidibe) and Sarah (Lily Cowles). Strange things soon start to happen, and a night out with her friends doesn’t quite the way Veronica had expected.
Antebellum’s biggest flaw, and unfortunately a rather pivotal one, is the story itself. I feel like there is meant to be an important message here, but I feel like it’s lost in the stereotypes and predictability. I’m trying to avoid spoilers, but this film is very reminiscent of one by M. Night Shyamalan and has a very similar storyline. I’d actually go so far as saying that his film was at least more interesting. Antebellum seems to have shied away from showing any real intrigue or thrill or horror at all, and other than switching from Eden to Veronica part way in, nothing of any real substance happens until the last 30 minutes of the film. There was even a lack of hints or subtleties pointing to the later plot twist throughout, and this may at least have helped make it a little less dull.
It’s a shame, as this film did have potential. It looks stunning and has been very well made, from the set design to the costumes, it all looks authentic and the score is suitably tense and dramatic too. The opening scene on the plantation alongside the score made for a very intriguing opener, although sadly this was spoilt some by the use questionable slow motion. Performance wise Gabourey Sidibe brings some much needed humour and fun as Veronica’s man hungry best friend, and Janelle Monae is captivating as both Eden and Veronica. This film is lucky Monae is such a talent, as she’s the only reason this was watchable to the very end. It’s just a shame Jena Malone’s Elizabeth is far too over the top to be a believable villain.
Antebellum is obviously trying to make an important statement about slavery and racism packaged into an unusual thriller/horror, but unlike similar films like Jordan Peele’s Get Out, it doesn’t manage to pull it off and instead flounders with a dull and predictable storyline that most could figure out well before the final act. It’s also severely lacking in any real intrigue or horror, and aside from some good performances, there’s nothing memorable about this at all.
iTriage - Health, Doctor, and Symptoms search
Health & Fitness and Medical
App
iTriage is a free app that puts you at the center of your healthcare—anywhere, anytime. Search for...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Can 8 women do the work of 11, 12 or even 13 men?
The female empowerment #SheToo implications of the title are clearly writ large for this movie! The answer of course…. is a major spoiler, so we won’t go there.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in Movies
Mar 4, 2018
Groundbreaking Special Effects (1 more)
Music
Truly...a masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Feb 22, 2018
A fun "who-will-survive" flick
During the Super Bowl, a "surprise" trailer dropped for a new entry in the Cloverfield family of films. The good news is that the film was dropping on Netflix the next day, so fanboys immediately jumped on-line and then started hating on it (again, on-line) because it wasn't exactly what they thought it would be.
Which is too bad, for THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is a very fun, very well made, very well acted "10 Little Indians" style Sci-Fi film (you know, the type of film where a finite group of folks are marooned someplace - like and island or an isolated, creepy mansion and are picked off one by one). This time, they are on a space station, and when an experiment goes awry, bad things start to happen.
I stated that this film is another entry in the "Cloverfield family of films", so let me explain that. The overseer of these films is none other than JJ Abrams and he has stated that there will be a series of films - very different in style, type and substance - that will (somehow) be related in the Cloverfield Universe. And, so far, he has fulfilled his promise (at least to me) - for those that just want "more of the same", he has alienated.
The first film, CLOVERFIELD, is a "found footage" film about a giant monster (think Godzilla) rampaging through modern day New York City. Of the 3 films,thus far, in the Cloverfield family, this one (for me) was the least effective (especially because I am not a big fan of "found footage" films). The 2nd film was 2016's 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE and was a very effective psychological horror/drama starring John Goodman as a fellow who has rescued/captured (kidnapped?) Mary Elizabeth Winstead and has locked her in his survival bunker in order to - he says - save her from the monster above. The film effectively goes back and forth with wondering what is scarier - the monster above or the monster (Goodman) below. If you haven't seen 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE, I highly recommend it.
The third installment, then, is THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX, a prequel of sorts about a group of scientists aboard a space station conducting a desperate, highly dangerous power experiments to solve the world's energy crisis. When something goes wrong, bad things happen. And since this is in the Cloverfield family, you gotta know it has some connection with how the Cloverfield monster got on Earth.
But this film doesn't really concern itself with the Cloverfield monster - which is what I think is angering the "fanboys" - this film is about the survival of the charismatic, international scientists that are stranded on this space station after the accident. Almost every one of the actors in this film are "oh...that guy" type actors - all very good. From German actor Daniel Bruhl (RUSH) to Chinese actress Ziyi Zhang (CROUCHING TIGER...) to Englishman David Oyelowo (SELMA) to good ol' John Ortiz (a million different things) - the cast is strong, fun to watch and easy to root for. They all are in service to the plot devices (and predicaments they are in) and they serve the plot (and the film) well.
Special notice should be made for Chris O'Dowd (BRIDESMAIDS) who brings some much needed levity via his deadpan humor approach to everything as the ship's handyman and, especially, Gugu Mbatha-Raw (BELLE) as the heroine of the adventure from through who's eyes we encounter the events of the film.
I have stated before that I am a sucker for these types of "10 Little Indians who-will-survive" films and this one is no exception. Go in with no preconceived notions, roll with what the film throws at you and you'll have a good time time, too.
THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: B (it is the very definition of a "B" movie).
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Which is too bad, for THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is a very fun, very well made, very well acted "10 Little Indians" style Sci-Fi film (you know, the type of film where a finite group of folks are marooned someplace - like and island or an isolated, creepy mansion and are picked off one by one). This time, they are on a space station, and when an experiment goes awry, bad things start to happen.
I stated that this film is another entry in the "Cloverfield family of films", so let me explain that. The overseer of these films is none other than JJ Abrams and he has stated that there will be a series of films - very different in style, type and substance - that will (somehow) be related in the Cloverfield Universe. And, so far, he has fulfilled his promise (at least to me) - for those that just want "more of the same", he has alienated.
The first film, CLOVERFIELD, is a "found footage" film about a giant monster (think Godzilla) rampaging through modern day New York City. Of the 3 films,thus far, in the Cloverfield family, this one (for me) was the least effective (especially because I am not a big fan of "found footage" films). The 2nd film was 2016's 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE and was a very effective psychological horror/drama starring John Goodman as a fellow who has rescued/captured (kidnapped?) Mary Elizabeth Winstead and has locked her in his survival bunker in order to - he says - save her from the monster above. The film effectively goes back and forth with wondering what is scarier - the monster above or the monster (Goodman) below. If you haven't seen 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE, I highly recommend it.
The third installment, then, is THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX, a prequel of sorts about a group of scientists aboard a space station conducting a desperate, highly dangerous power experiments to solve the world's energy crisis. When something goes wrong, bad things happen. And since this is in the Cloverfield family, you gotta know it has some connection with how the Cloverfield monster got on Earth.
But this film doesn't really concern itself with the Cloverfield monster - which is what I think is angering the "fanboys" - this film is about the survival of the charismatic, international scientists that are stranded on this space station after the accident. Almost every one of the actors in this film are "oh...that guy" type actors - all very good. From German actor Daniel Bruhl (RUSH) to Chinese actress Ziyi Zhang (CROUCHING TIGER...) to Englishman David Oyelowo (SELMA) to good ol' John Ortiz (a million different things) - the cast is strong, fun to watch and easy to root for. They all are in service to the plot devices (and predicaments they are in) and they serve the plot (and the film) well.
Special notice should be made for Chris O'Dowd (BRIDESMAIDS) who brings some much needed levity via his deadpan humor approach to everything as the ship's handyman and, especially, Gugu Mbatha-Raw (BELLE) as the heroine of the adventure from through who's eyes we encounter the events of the film.
I have stated before that I am a sucker for these types of "10 Little Indians who-will-survive" films and this one is no exception. Go in with no preconceived notions, roll with what the film throws at you and you'll have a good time time, too.
THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: B (it is the very definition of a "B" movie).
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in Movies
Jul 4, 2018
A Masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
MASTERPIECE
I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.
For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.
But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.
Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.
In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.
The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?
It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.
I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.
Truly...a masterpiece.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Disappointingly Average
I love The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo series. The Swedish films are excellent and David Fincher’s US adaptation was a decent watch too. Lisbeth Salander is such an iconic and well-written character, so her return to the big screen was met with much anticipation. With a new cast and new story I was looking forward to seeing it, catching a Limitless preview screening a few days before its general UK release. Unfortunately, it didn’t live up to my relatively high expectations.
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
The answer to the above is "yes" by the way... it's always yes.
When Tim gets to Ryme City and finds Pikachu, who was presumed dead along with his father, a mystery presents itself. Where is Harry Goodman? And why can Tim understand Pikachu? With an accidental encounter with a substance called R, and a reporter/intern sniffing around for a story, the sleuthing duo realise there's something bigger going on.
This really is a kids' version of Deadpool. I was even abbreviating "DP" in my notes.
I don't quite know where to start. My knowledge of Pokémon is very limited and as such, it hadn't occurred to me that Pokémon don't generally speak English. Had I remembered that fact then I probably would have guessed the ending very quickly. (Also, there's a point on this that is a spoiler that has since wound me up.)
It's not a great film, but it's an amusing one. I'm stumped as to who it is actually aimed at, it's not a kids films and it's not a adults film. It hovers somewhere overhead trying to get a slice of all the action. The kids were entertained but it was generally cooing at the animated characters when they appeared or laughing at physical humour. I was actually quite surprised that Pikachu's script has bad language in it considering it was a PG and always going to attract family viewers.
One of the many things that didn't fit for me was the very beginning of the film. While I love Karan Soni, I would have cut out the whole first scenes for a shorter and slightly more logical lead into the film. It felt a little forced as it's the only sighting of a Pokéball. I get it, you think Pokémon you see the ball, but with the city's introduction as a place where humans and Pokémon co-exist without battles you really didn't need to jam it in there.
Pikachu's animation was really good, particularly when we see him with wet fur. Consistency with the characters was a little hit and miss though and occasionally I felt like some scenes had missed a step compared to the rest of the film.
Generally the animation to real life interactions were good, generally. I can't get over how bad the full bar scene is that we see in the trailer. When Pikachu turns and his tail slaps Tim in the face... if you can't line it up well then why do it? I also found it very frustrating that Justice Smith never seemed to be looking at him properly, and it was more than just the ignoring him as was established earlier in the scene.
Kathryn Newton as Lucy Stevens... Now, I know there is always someone hyperactive in these things, but oh my. She also seemed a little surplus to requirements. Her only real purpose seemed to be as an awkward (sort of) love interest. Everything she brought to the story could easily have been achieved in other more relevant ways.
My absolute favourite part of the film is again, something that was slightly covered in a trailer, but the whole cut is wonderful if a little extreme if you over think it. Tim, Pikachu and Mr Mime. The interrogation scene is so funny... slightly sinister at the end but fun. I won't go on anymore because I don't want to spoil it for you.
I genuinely don't know how much the acting in this actually affects the overall film. Had you replaced any of the on-screen actors then you probably would have come out with the same film, without Ryan Reynolds, I'm not so sure.
As I said at the beginning, I don't know a massive about Pokémon, but even to me it doesn't seem like it matches with the franchise, perhaps that's the point. Will there be another? I don't know, but I suspect there's scope for it even though [SPOILER].
What you should do
It's amusing and I'm sure it'll be on for a while so perhaps see it when the hype has passed.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Well obviously I want a Pokémon, but do I want a Pikachu or a Growlithe?
When Tim gets to Ryme City and finds Pikachu, who was presumed dead along with his father, a mystery presents itself. Where is Harry Goodman? And why can Tim understand Pikachu? With an accidental encounter with a substance called R, and a reporter/intern sniffing around for a story, the sleuthing duo realise there's something bigger going on.
This really is a kids' version of Deadpool. I was even abbreviating "DP" in my notes.
I don't quite know where to start. My knowledge of Pokémon is very limited and as such, it hadn't occurred to me that Pokémon don't generally speak English. Had I remembered that fact then I probably would have guessed the ending very quickly. (Also, there's a point on this that is a spoiler that has since wound me up.)
It's not a great film, but it's an amusing one. I'm stumped as to who it is actually aimed at, it's not a kids films and it's not a adults film. It hovers somewhere overhead trying to get a slice of all the action. The kids were entertained but it was generally cooing at the animated characters when they appeared or laughing at physical humour. I was actually quite surprised that Pikachu's script has bad language in it considering it was a PG and always going to attract family viewers.
One of the many things that didn't fit for me was the very beginning of the film. While I love Karan Soni, I would have cut out the whole first scenes for a shorter and slightly more logical lead into the film. It felt a little forced as it's the only sighting of a Pokéball. I get it, you think Pokémon you see the ball, but with the city's introduction as a place where humans and Pokémon co-exist without battles you really didn't need to jam it in there.
Pikachu's animation was really good, particularly when we see him with wet fur. Consistency with the characters was a little hit and miss though and occasionally I felt like some scenes had missed a step compared to the rest of the film.
Generally the animation to real life interactions were good, generally. I can't get over how bad the full bar scene is that we see in the trailer. When Pikachu turns and his tail slaps Tim in the face... if you can't line it up well then why do it? I also found it very frustrating that Justice Smith never seemed to be looking at him properly, and it was more than just the ignoring him as was established earlier in the scene.
Kathryn Newton as Lucy Stevens... Now, I know there is always someone hyperactive in these things, but oh my. She also seemed a little surplus to requirements. Her only real purpose seemed to be as an awkward (sort of) love interest. Everything she brought to the story could easily have been achieved in other more relevant ways.
My absolute favourite part of the film is again, something that was slightly covered in a trailer, but the whole cut is wonderful if a little extreme if you over think it. Tim, Pikachu and Mr Mime. The interrogation scene is so funny... slightly sinister at the end but fun. I won't go on anymore because I don't want to spoil it for you.
I genuinely don't know how much the acting in this actually affects the overall film. Had you replaced any of the on-screen actors then you probably would have come out with the same film, without Ryan Reynolds, I'm not so sure.
As I said at the beginning, I don't know a massive about Pokémon, but even to me it doesn't seem like it matches with the franchise, perhaps that's the point. Will there be another? I don't know, but I suspect there's scope for it even though [SPOILER].
What you should do
It's amusing and I'm sure it'll be on for a while so perhaps see it when the hype has passed.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Well obviously I want a Pokémon, but do I want a Pikachu or a Growlithe?
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Onward (2020) in Movies
Mar 15, 2020
I had very mixed feelings about Onward after seeing the trailer, it didn't feel like Pixar and if you'd shown it to me out of context I'd never have guessed it was them.
It's Ian's 16th birthday and things aren't exactly going to plan. To cheer him up his mum gives him and his brother a present left for them by their late father. In a world that has forgotten magic, their father had still believed, and he's leaving them a way that will allow them to see him again. When the only way to complete the spell means finding something long forgotten the brothers must embark on a quest, one that older brother Barley has been preparing for his whole life.
Onward starts with a great potted history of magic in their world and how it's been replaced by modern amenities. It feels like they made a very quick change but I liked it over the sped-up timeline over many years, it actually summed up a more modern way of abandoning things that aren't convenient. It also allows you to have fun little moments of thinking about how things changed when you see flashes of their past during the film.
With Pixar you know that you're going to get that sentiment and deeper meaning that induces bucketloads of tears and in Onward it's a strong message about family and how the past weighs down on what's actually happening in the present. None of that meaning really feels like it's there until very late in the film though, the beginning is more like some generic off-brand fantasy adventure, and though the two ends fit together they don't seem like they belong together.
The mix of characters is fun but we don't get a proper introduction to who, or what, many of them are. It's a shame that with such a varied selection of creatures that most are just relegated to being quirky looking with no real function. There were at least things to appreciate from some of them, Colt counting I thought was a fun touch, and I loved Corey the Manticore, her whole transition through the film was funny and very entertaining.
Chris Pratt as Barley was the only spot on bit of casting for me, his happy-go-lucky demeanour fits the character and we're treated to some of that Starlord adventure. (My favourite Barley scene was definitely the bridge). Everyone else kind of felt a little... meh? I wasn't wowed, I wasn't hooked in trying to work out who the voices were, it all felt a little bland. Partly I think that's because I never felt like I learned anything about them. Sure, some bits were fun, but through most of the film I wasn't really bothered what happened to any of them.
The journey that brothers Ian and Barley go on is full of twists and turns, they're amusing but nothing we haven't really seen before. As I mentioned, the emotional payoff doesn't appear until very late, and it did reduce me to tears, but it could have been so much more. The build-up to it had no real substance, especially when you consider how meaningful it's conclusion is.
In fact, the build-up could have offered up so many different things. For a fantasy story with magic and mythical creatures it holds little to no magical feeling. There's no real spectacle or pizzazz to anything. When I think of magic in other films I get wonder and joy, but in Onward it's done more for jokes. Even at the climax of the film it takes on so much humour that it detracts from the emotions.
Dan Scalon's story is partly based on his own experiences (I'm assuming with less mythical creature though)... and that story is peak Pixar... but the world created around it isn't strong enough for the sentiment it portrays. Taking such a powerful message about family and bundling it up in something that doesn't have the usual Pixar strength and heart feels like a travesty to me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/onward-movie-review.html
It's Ian's 16th birthday and things aren't exactly going to plan. To cheer him up his mum gives him and his brother a present left for them by their late father. In a world that has forgotten magic, their father had still believed, and he's leaving them a way that will allow them to see him again. When the only way to complete the spell means finding something long forgotten the brothers must embark on a quest, one that older brother Barley has been preparing for his whole life.
Onward starts with a great potted history of magic in their world and how it's been replaced by modern amenities. It feels like they made a very quick change but I liked it over the sped-up timeline over many years, it actually summed up a more modern way of abandoning things that aren't convenient. It also allows you to have fun little moments of thinking about how things changed when you see flashes of their past during the film.
With Pixar you know that you're going to get that sentiment and deeper meaning that induces bucketloads of tears and in Onward it's a strong message about family and how the past weighs down on what's actually happening in the present. None of that meaning really feels like it's there until very late in the film though, the beginning is more like some generic off-brand fantasy adventure, and though the two ends fit together they don't seem like they belong together.
The mix of characters is fun but we don't get a proper introduction to who, or what, many of them are. It's a shame that with such a varied selection of creatures that most are just relegated to being quirky looking with no real function. There were at least things to appreciate from some of them, Colt counting I thought was a fun touch, and I loved Corey the Manticore, her whole transition through the film was funny and very entertaining.
Chris Pratt as Barley was the only spot on bit of casting for me, his happy-go-lucky demeanour fits the character and we're treated to some of that Starlord adventure. (My favourite Barley scene was definitely the bridge). Everyone else kind of felt a little... meh? I wasn't wowed, I wasn't hooked in trying to work out who the voices were, it all felt a little bland. Partly I think that's because I never felt like I learned anything about them. Sure, some bits were fun, but through most of the film I wasn't really bothered what happened to any of them.
The journey that brothers Ian and Barley go on is full of twists and turns, they're amusing but nothing we haven't really seen before. As I mentioned, the emotional payoff doesn't appear until very late, and it did reduce me to tears, but it could have been so much more. The build-up to it had no real substance, especially when you consider how meaningful it's conclusion is.
In fact, the build-up could have offered up so many different things. For a fantasy story with magic and mythical creatures it holds little to no magical feeling. There's no real spectacle or pizzazz to anything. When I think of magic in other films I get wonder and joy, but in Onward it's done more for jokes. Even at the climax of the film it takes on so much humour that it detracts from the emotions.
Dan Scalon's story is partly based on his own experiences (I'm assuming with less mythical creature though)... and that story is peak Pixar... but the world created around it isn't strong enough for the sentiment it portrays. Taking such a powerful message about family and bundling it up in something that doesn't have the usual Pixar strength and heart feels like a travesty to me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/onward-movie-review.html