Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) in Movies
Aug 1, 2018
Quite possibly, the best action film ever made
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT just might be the best action movie I have ever seen.
Yes...it is that good.
The 6th entry in the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE franchise, this film stars, as usual, Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, part of the IMF, a secret government entity that takes on the impossible missions that the CIA (and other agencies) won't touch. He is joined, yet again, in this installment of the franchise by his "usual" team, Simon Pegg (Benji), Ving Rhames (Luther), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilse) and Alec Baldwin (IMF Director Hunley). It was fun to have "the band" back together again. They looked like they had a good time filming this and I had a good time watching it.
Jumping right in on the fun is Angela Bassett (BLACK PANTHER) as the head of the CIA, but doing more than just being a thorn in the side of Alec Baldwin. As well as Vanessa Kirby (THE CROWN) as the mysterious "White Widow" and, especially, Henry Cavill, who shows that he can do more than be DC's Superman.
And, finally, the franchise wisely brings back Sean Harris as "big bad" Solomon Lane (think Bond's arch-nemesis Blofeld). He proves to be, yet again, an able adversary for the IMF team.
The plot, of course, is somewhat convoluted, with twists, turns and double-crosses (by both the good and bad guys) throughout this film. If I have a quibble for this film, it is that they got a little "cute" with the plot twists - there was (perhaps) one or two too many "gotchas" - but that is just a quibble, for the plot gets us from point "A" to point "B" nicely.
And when I say "Point A" and "Point B", I mean action set piece "A" to action set piece "B" (and "C" and "D" and "E" and "F"...) - and boy are these action set pieces EXTRAORDINARY!
Director Christopher McQuarrie (he also Directed the previous film in this franchise, ROUGE NATION) is the first person to helm two of these films - and I think it is a smart choice for he established in Rogue Nation an ability to create smart, tense action, chase and fight sequences that are easy to follow and fun to watch.
Credit for most of this fun has to go to 55 year old (at the time of filming) Tom Cruise - looking every bit as fit and capable as a 35 year old Tom Cruise. He dives into the action sequences (literally) with gusto and proves more than capable of delivering the goods. Once again, he does a death-defying stunt that left me amazed.
But, what I really left the theater with was an appreciation for McQuarrie, Cruise and company for delivering an end sequence that earned the build up it was given. EVERY member of the company had something to do and the action in this endpiece was a step up of anything that had come before it - either in the Mission Impossible series, or in any other action flick.
If you are a fan of good, solid action films, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT is one to not miss.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes...it is that good.
The 6th entry in the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE franchise, this film stars, as usual, Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, part of the IMF, a secret government entity that takes on the impossible missions that the CIA (and other agencies) won't touch. He is joined, yet again, in this installment of the franchise by his "usual" team, Simon Pegg (Benji), Ving Rhames (Luther), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilse) and Alec Baldwin (IMF Director Hunley). It was fun to have "the band" back together again. They looked like they had a good time filming this and I had a good time watching it.
Jumping right in on the fun is Angela Bassett (BLACK PANTHER) as the head of the CIA, but doing more than just being a thorn in the side of Alec Baldwin. As well as Vanessa Kirby (THE CROWN) as the mysterious "White Widow" and, especially, Henry Cavill, who shows that he can do more than be DC's Superman.
And, finally, the franchise wisely brings back Sean Harris as "big bad" Solomon Lane (think Bond's arch-nemesis Blofeld). He proves to be, yet again, an able adversary for the IMF team.
The plot, of course, is somewhat convoluted, with twists, turns and double-crosses (by both the good and bad guys) throughout this film. If I have a quibble for this film, it is that they got a little "cute" with the plot twists - there was (perhaps) one or two too many "gotchas" - but that is just a quibble, for the plot gets us from point "A" to point "B" nicely.
And when I say "Point A" and "Point B", I mean action set piece "A" to action set piece "B" (and "C" and "D" and "E" and "F"...) - and boy are these action set pieces EXTRAORDINARY!
Director Christopher McQuarrie (he also Directed the previous film in this franchise, ROUGE NATION) is the first person to helm two of these films - and I think it is a smart choice for he established in Rogue Nation an ability to create smart, tense action, chase and fight sequences that are easy to follow and fun to watch.
Credit for most of this fun has to go to 55 year old (at the time of filming) Tom Cruise - looking every bit as fit and capable as a 35 year old Tom Cruise. He dives into the action sequences (literally) with gusto and proves more than capable of delivering the goods. Once again, he does a death-defying stunt that left me amazed.
But, what I really left the theater with was an appreciation for McQuarrie, Cruise and company for delivering an end sequence that earned the build up it was given. EVERY member of the company had something to do and the action in this endpiece was a step up of anything that had come before it - either in the Mission Impossible series, or in any other action flick.
If you are a fan of good, solid action films, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT is one to not miss.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Hancock (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Throughout the annals of cinema, the big screen has been home to some of the most larger-than-life heroes ever to spring from the pages of comic books. Recent adaptations of Spider-Man, Batman, and Superman, all went on to box office gold and with several more character adaptations in the works, there seems to be no end to the public’s desire to see tales based on costumed heroes with amazing powers.
In one of the more original twists on the hero genre, Will Smith stars as Hancock, a surly lush, who is more concerned about his next drink than he is about saving the day. Despite being blessed with amazing strength, invulnerability, and the ability to fly, Hancock is looked upon with disdain by most of the people of Los Angeles because his attitude is second only to the amazing amount of damage he causes in bringing local hoodlums to justice.
Shortly after causing nine million dollars in damage after his latest crime fighting effort, the mayor of L.A. places a warrant out for Hancock, having decided it was time for Hancock to be held accountable for the mayhem he has caused. At the same time, publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is returning home after failing in his pitch to get a major pharmaceutical company to donate their new wonder drug in an effort to make the world better.
When danger arises during a traffic jam, Ray is saved by Hancock in the nick of time and is grateful for the efforts of the hero. Unfortunately a group of bystanders are convinced that Hancock could have saved Ray without making wreaking such havoc. In the midst of some heated verbal exchanges, Ray steps up for Hancock and expresses his gratitude to the hero and invites him home for dinner with his son and wife Mary (Charlize Theron). Undaunted by the gruff mannerisms of Hancock, Ray eventually convinces Hancock to let Ray represent him and sets out on a plan to remake Hancock’s image more positive and civic-friendly.
While this scenario presents several comedic moments, the film eventually changes tact, and becomes much darker in tone, and mired in a subplot of fate and mysticism that honestly seems greatly out-of-place with the tone established in the first three quarters of the film.
While it is notable that the filmmakers decided to try something different, the final result is a muddled effort that greatly undermines the laughs and momentum that were established earlier in the film. Smith does a great job but when he is not unleashing his sardonic quips, he seems to be disinterested and going through the motion for much of the last half of the film. Bateman does the best he can with a stock part and Theron seems woefully underused in a role that, while promising, really is not worthy of an actress of her skills.
Director Peter Berg does a solid job with the action and FX of the film, and clearly shows he has a knack for humor. Unfortunately the script by “X-Files” alum Vince Gilligan and Vince Ngo fails to live up to the potential of the premise and in the end leaves “Hancock” grounded.
In one of the more original twists on the hero genre, Will Smith stars as Hancock, a surly lush, who is more concerned about his next drink than he is about saving the day. Despite being blessed with amazing strength, invulnerability, and the ability to fly, Hancock is looked upon with disdain by most of the people of Los Angeles because his attitude is second only to the amazing amount of damage he causes in bringing local hoodlums to justice.
Shortly after causing nine million dollars in damage after his latest crime fighting effort, the mayor of L.A. places a warrant out for Hancock, having decided it was time for Hancock to be held accountable for the mayhem he has caused. At the same time, publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is returning home after failing in his pitch to get a major pharmaceutical company to donate their new wonder drug in an effort to make the world better.
When danger arises during a traffic jam, Ray is saved by Hancock in the nick of time and is grateful for the efforts of the hero. Unfortunately a group of bystanders are convinced that Hancock could have saved Ray without making wreaking such havoc. In the midst of some heated verbal exchanges, Ray steps up for Hancock and expresses his gratitude to the hero and invites him home for dinner with his son and wife Mary (Charlize Theron). Undaunted by the gruff mannerisms of Hancock, Ray eventually convinces Hancock to let Ray represent him and sets out on a plan to remake Hancock’s image more positive and civic-friendly.
While this scenario presents several comedic moments, the film eventually changes tact, and becomes much darker in tone, and mired in a subplot of fate and mysticism that honestly seems greatly out-of-place with the tone established in the first three quarters of the film.
While it is notable that the filmmakers decided to try something different, the final result is a muddled effort that greatly undermines the laughs and momentum that were established earlier in the film. Smith does a great job but when he is not unleashing his sardonic quips, he seems to be disinterested and going through the motion for much of the last half of the film. Bateman does the best he can with a stock part and Theron seems woefully underused in a role that, while promising, really is not worthy of an actress of her skills.
Director Peter Berg does a solid job with the action and FX of the film, and clearly shows he has a knack for humor. Unfortunately the script by “X-Files” alum Vince Gilligan and Vince Ngo fails to live up to the potential of the premise and in the end leaves “Hancock” grounded.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Mini Avengers, Assemble
Is anyone else getting bored of superhero films? Nope? Just me then. We’re not even halfway through 2016 and there have been three of them. In February, there was Deadpool, a film that despite all the odds, turned out to be smashing – despite its generic finale.
Then, DC tried to compete with Marvel in March with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. It was fine, if far too long and lacking in any real drama. Now, Marvel is back with Captain America: Civil War. But can it break the superhero tedium that has started to settle in?
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is back and he is not happy. The titular hero, and the rest of our beloved Avengers clan, are asked to sign up to a UN treaty, designed to reign in their unsupervised power after a dramatic and deadly battle against terrorists in Nigeria. It turns out the Avengers lost the PR war and countries across the globe want blood – well them to back off a little at least.
Most of the fan favourites return in Civil War, with Robert Downey Jr proving once again why he was cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man all those years ago. He is a commanding presence and brings to the table some of the best one-liners outside a fully-fledged Iron Man film.
Elsewhere, Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Elizabeth Olsen (Scarlet Witch) and Paul Bettany (Vision) all return and despite the increasing number of characters all make their presence felt throughout the course of the film – something Avengers: Age of Ultron failed to do.
However, the film belongs to the characters that join the film and the Marvel Universe. Paul Rudd’s Ant-Man makes a truly exceptional appearance and features in Civil War’s most memorable scene – a brilliantly choreographed battle between two sides in a deserted airport.
And, the long-awaited “homecoming” of Spider-Man to the MCU is thankfully worth the wait. He’s been teased in the trailers and I’m pleased to say his screen-time is far greater than anyone could have imagined. Young Tom Holland’s portrayal of Peter Parker may need some time to settle in, we have a Spider-Man reboot to look forward to in 2018, but he makes a cracking first impression.
So, with all those characters it’s fair to say that Civil War should be renamed “Mini Avengers Assemble” as there’s far more at stake here than a simple Captain America movie. Directors Joe and Anthony Russo have created the film that Age of Ultron should have been and it’s a slight disservice to their incredible work that the film isn’t labelled as a full Avengers feature, despite the lack of Thor and Hulk.
The action is beautifully filmed and the locations are fabulous. From Africa to America and from Germany to London, nearly every inch of the world is touched upon in some way – yet it doesn’t feel disjointed.
But what makes Civil War stand out from all the rest is its human side. This isn’t a superhero movie that ends in a climactic battle against a faceless army, it explores the human impact of our characters’ actions and the emotion radiates from its heart.
Yes, it’s 20 minutes too long but apart from that, I can’t think of a bad word to say. It has reinvigorated a genre that was starting to turn a little stale. Bringing together a set of characters that against all the odds gel together so well makes it feel as fresh as Iron Man did way back in 2008.
If this is the magic the Russo brothers can work at Marvel, Avengers: Infinity War should be something truly special indeed. X-Men: Apocalypse, you have your work cut out.
Oh, and wait right up until the end credits for something very special indeed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/01/mini-avengers-assemble-captain-america-civil-war-review/
Then, DC tried to compete with Marvel in March with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. It was fine, if far too long and lacking in any real drama. Now, Marvel is back with Captain America: Civil War. But can it break the superhero tedium that has started to settle in?
Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is back and he is not happy. The titular hero, and the rest of our beloved Avengers clan, are asked to sign up to a UN treaty, designed to reign in their unsupervised power after a dramatic and deadly battle against terrorists in Nigeria. It turns out the Avengers lost the PR war and countries across the globe want blood – well them to back off a little at least.
Most of the fan favourites return in Civil War, with Robert Downey Jr proving once again why he was cast as Tony Stark/Iron Man all those years ago. He is a commanding presence and brings to the table some of the best one-liners outside a fully-fledged Iron Man film.
Elsewhere, Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Elizabeth Olsen (Scarlet Witch) and Paul Bettany (Vision) all return and despite the increasing number of characters all make their presence felt throughout the course of the film – something Avengers: Age of Ultron failed to do.
However, the film belongs to the characters that join the film and the Marvel Universe. Paul Rudd’s Ant-Man makes a truly exceptional appearance and features in Civil War’s most memorable scene – a brilliantly choreographed battle between two sides in a deserted airport.
And, the long-awaited “homecoming” of Spider-Man to the MCU is thankfully worth the wait. He’s been teased in the trailers and I’m pleased to say his screen-time is far greater than anyone could have imagined. Young Tom Holland’s portrayal of Peter Parker may need some time to settle in, we have a Spider-Man reboot to look forward to in 2018, but he makes a cracking first impression.
So, with all those characters it’s fair to say that Civil War should be renamed “Mini Avengers Assemble” as there’s far more at stake here than a simple Captain America movie. Directors Joe and Anthony Russo have created the film that Age of Ultron should have been and it’s a slight disservice to their incredible work that the film isn’t labelled as a full Avengers feature, despite the lack of Thor and Hulk.
The action is beautifully filmed and the locations are fabulous. From Africa to America and from Germany to London, nearly every inch of the world is touched upon in some way – yet it doesn’t feel disjointed.
But what makes Civil War stand out from all the rest is its human side. This isn’t a superhero movie that ends in a climactic battle against a faceless army, it explores the human impact of our characters’ actions and the emotion radiates from its heart.
Yes, it’s 20 minutes too long but apart from that, I can’t think of a bad word to say. It has reinvigorated a genre that was starting to turn a little stale. Bringing together a set of characters that against all the odds gel together so well makes it feel as fresh as Iron Man did way back in 2008.
If this is the magic the Russo brothers can work at Marvel, Avengers: Infinity War should be something truly special indeed. X-Men: Apocalypse, you have your work cut out.
Oh, and wait right up until the end credits for something very special indeed.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/01/mini-avengers-assemble-captain-america-civil-war-review/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Mar 18, 2021 (Updated Mar 19, 2021)
Contains spoilers, click to show
First of all, it's a damn miracle that this even exists at all. A once mythical cut that just seemed like a fabricated idea from Snyder fans who couldn't quite except that Justice League (2017) was awful. It's no secret that the theatrical cut was riddled with issues, and of course, personal tragedy, that resulted in a messy final product. This extended cut aimed to restore Snyder's original vision, and right the wrongs of what came before, and it mostly succeeds.
I still believe that the DCEU should have invested in solo movies for all it's big players before tackling a huge event like this, but there comes a time where I have to accept that that isn't what happened, so I watched this with that in mind, and left my bitterness at the door.
Zack Snyder's Justice League is undeniably a far superior, and vastly different beast to its predecessor. The 4 hour+ runtime gives the narrative plenty of breathing space, and allows the audience to connect with these characters properly. The biggest benefactor of this is Cyborg. A character that was more or less tossed to the side before, is given so much backstory, that he is now an integral part of the films emotional core. The Flash is another character that hugely benefits. Whereas before he was relegated to comedy relief and almost useless in the grand scheme of things, here, he's a young man who grows throughout the story from a joker, into an instrumental part of saving the world. The balance between all of these characters is well done actually - Batman doesn't feel like a waste, Wonder Woman is back to being a raging badass instead of moping over Steve Trevor - All of the League members feel important, and each bring their own strengths. They are portrayed as an effective team.
Main antagonist Steppenwolf is much better realised. He visually looks a hundred times better than whatever the fuck we got back in 2017, and he feels like an actual threat. His evil scheme makes sense this time around whereas before it was an ill explained mess. It feels like the stakes are high.
The set pieces we get are pretty spectacular. The new stuff is a treat to watch, and the familiar stuff has been reworked so well. The action heavy scenes involving Steppenwolf in Themyscira, and when the League first take him on below Striker Island are absolutely thrilling. In the original cut, I'd argue that the scene immediately following Superman's revival was the most exciting in terms of action, but here, it's probably the most lackluster in comparison. It's spaced out nicely, and the screenplay is incredibly engaging. The humour is seldom but funny when it happens, and the more emotional moments are well executed. All of this combined results in a story that never feels like a drag. The four hours flew by pretty quickly, and it's all complimented by a wonderful music score.
In terms of wider DC material, there's a whole wealth of stuff for comic fans to enjoy - Darkseid using his angular beams, the introduction of Ryan Choi aka The Atom, Martian Manhunter, and the extended Knightmare sequence where Batman and The Joker converse about events that have happened in the past. All good stuff that makes the DCEU finally feel like a connected narrative.
Overall, Zack Snyder's Justice League does a pretty damn good job at delivering an event movie that is bittersweet. It's great to see Snyder's original vision realised (although I can understand how it may not have resonated with a wider audience - it's most definitely a movie for fans of DC comics), but it's all a setup for a sequel that will probably never happen, which is a great shame. This is what happens when studios stick their ore in too much!
Final note - it makes me really happy that Alfred addresses Superman as 'Master Kent'.
I still believe that the DCEU should have invested in solo movies for all it's big players before tackling a huge event like this, but there comes a time where I have to accept that that isn't what happened, so I watched this with that in mind, and left my bitterness at the door.
Zack Snyder's Justice League is undeniably a far superior, and vastly different beast to its predecessor. The 4 hour+ runtime gives the narrative plenty of breathing space, and allows the audience to connect with these characters properly. The biggest benefactor of this is Cyborg. A character that was more or less tossed to the side before, is given so much backstory, that he is now an integral part of the films emotional core. The Flash is another character that hugely benefits. Whereas before he was relegated to comedy relief and almost useless in the grand scheme of things, here, he's a young man who grows throughout the story from a joker, into an instrumental part of saving the world. The balance between all of these characters is well done actually - Batman doesn't feel like a waste, Wonder Woman is back to being a raging badass instead of moping over Steve Trevor - All of the League members feel important, and each bring their own strengths. They are portrayed as an effective team.
Main antagonist Steppenwolf is much better realised. He visually looks a hundred times better than whatever the fuck we got back in 2017, and he feels like an actual threat. His evil scheme makes sense this time around whereas before it was an ill explained mess. It feels like the stakes are high.
The set pieces we get are pretty spectacular. The new stuff is a treat to watch, and the familiar stuff has been reworked so well. The action heavy scenes involving Steppenwolf in Themyscira, and when the League first take him on below Striker Island are absolutely thrilling. In the original cut, I'd argue that the scene immediately following Superman's revival was the most exciting in terms of action, but here, it's probably the most lackluster in comparison. It's spaced out nicely, and the screenplay is incredibly engaging. The humour is seldom but funny when it happens, and the more emotional moments are well executed. All of this combined results in a story that never feels like a drag. The four hours flew by pretty quickly, and it's all complimented by a wonderful music score.
In terms of wider DC material, there's a whole wealth of stuff for comic fans to enjoy - Darkseid using his angular beams, the introduction of Ryan Choi aka The Atom, Martian Manhunter, and the extended Knightmare sequence where Batman and The Joker converse about events that have happened in the past. All good stuff that makes the DCEU finally feel like a connected narrative.
Overall, Zack Snyder's Justice League does a pretty damn good job at delivering an event movie that is bittersweet. It's great to see Snyder's original vision realised (although I can understand how it may not have resonated with a wider audience - it's most definitely a movie for fans of DC comics), but it's all a setup for a sequel that will probably never happen, which is a great shame. This is what happens when studios stick their ore in too much!
Final note - it makes me really happy that Alfred addresses Superman as 'Master Kent'.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Me Before You (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You are scored on my heart Clark”
“Me Before You” is a bit of a queer fish of a movie. It never quite decides whether it wants to be a romantic weepy, a drama, or a rom-com and as such ends up rather falling between all three stools.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Emelia Clarke (“Game of Thrones”, “Terminator: Genesys”) plays Lou Clark, an ‘invisible’ girl “with potential” who is trapped – due to unemployment-led poverty – living with her parents in a provincial castle town (a picturesque Pembroke, though notably hardly a Welsh accent in earshot). Her boyfriend Patrick (“Harry Potter”’s Matthew Lewis) is a running nut that doesn’t play to her romantic needs in any way. Circumstance leads her into the job of a carer for a quadriplegic, Will Traynor (Sam Claflin, from “The Hunger Games” sequels) who also happens to be the son of the local millionaire couple (played by Charles Dance and Janet McTeer). They own the castle, a large mansion and most of the surrounding countryside too.
Will – previously a sports jock – is paralyzed from the neck down after an accident and is a frustrated and suicidal mind in a useless body. Can the quirky and vivacious Lou bring him out of his morbid shell and find him a life worth living again?
From this outline, you might think the story almost writes itself, and for most of the film it does. But the writers have a number of twists and turns in store which – depending on your sentiments – might entertain or appall.
As her first leading actress role in a non-action feature it’s a bit difficult to sum up Emilia Clarke’s performance. At face value it could be described as an advanced case of over-acting, with an extensive array of kooky looks and gurning facial expressions. (Those eyebrows! At some point we’re going to have to see her acting opposite Cara DeLevingne in a “Batman v Superman” eye-brow-off). On the other hand, she plays the part with such vivacity and charm – and notably in a manner so in keeping with the character she portrays – that it is hard not to be enchanted by her: I certainly was.
Claflin plays the brooding and resentful Traynor well and Matthew Lewis shows he is growing into a really professional jobbing actor as he enters his mid-20’s.
Also radiant (she always is… sorry to break it to the wife like this… but I am basically in love with her!!) is the ever-gorgeous Jenna Coleman (“Dr Who”, “Victoria”) in what is to date a rare outing for her onto the big screen (she previously has only had a small role in the first “Captain America” film: she really needs a breakout movie like Carey Mulligan’s “An Education”). Coleman and Clarke make a very credible pair of sisters, with the “bed” discussion scene being very touching.
Elsewhere a number of other well-known faces crop up including Brendan Coyle (“Downton Abbey”) as Lou’s father and Joanna Lumley as a wedding guest with a handy line in references.
The soundtrack by Craig (“Love Actually”) Armstrong is top notch with pleasing songs from Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Cloves and We The Kings.
The production quality is as professional as you would expect from a British-made movie, although the Mallorca and Paris locations are not particularly well exploited, since for a large chunk of these scenes I was convinced they hadn’t left Pinewood!
So, a bit of a mixed bag, but enjoyable nonetheless. A guilty pleasure. If you like a romantic piece of escapism this is one for a wet Sunday afternoon, provided you have a box of tissues handy.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The length of time it’s taken me to catch this one at the cinema belies my lukewarm interest in the material: I’m not a ‘fan boy’ for either Marvel or DC properties. As it turns out, writer/director David “Fury” Ayer’s Suicide Squad is just plain frustrating in cinematic terms.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 8, 2019
"war is coming to the surface"
Aquaman is absolutely a disciple of the superhero formula we've seen used, reused and recycled over the past couple decades...but its formula done right. There's an inherent lunacy to a hero like Aquaman; his myth is built upon a lost Atlantean culture that's simultaneously advanced technologically and heavily influenced by ancient Greek mythology, and his powers included near-Superman levels of strength and invulnerability existing alongside an ability to communicate with marine life. This makes approaching his story from a gritty, realistic perspective damn near impossible.
Instead Wan and the writers behind Aquaman intelligently focus on world-building and following the tried-and-true "heroic journey"; complete with initial rejection of a prophesied role, slow but steady immersion into said role's culture, recognition of the need for growth and change, and eventual assumption of role. It's been seen before and it'll be seen again. But what propels Aquaman ahead of other films like it is the energy that Wan imbues it with. It's goofy without undermining the sincerity of Arthur's journey. It's fast-paced and simple-minded without sacrificing the weight and universality of this particular hero's myth. It's loud and colorful and *full* of CGI everything without reducing itself to an over-commercialized, artless heap of nothingness.
It's a big-ass blockbuster with personality. Momoa has charisma to spare; he owns the physicality and irreverence of this new imagining of the king of the ocean perfectly. Amber Heard is sexy and badass as Mera; something of a victim of a forced romance but also a compelling and strong protagonist in her own right. Patrick Wilson as Oceanmaster (call me....Oceanmaster) is given enough screen-time to develop that he's more than a punching bag for Aquaman; but actually a character with ambitions and a defined, fleshed-out purpose. The origin segment is tightly done and more than enough to set the stage for what is to come. And probably the strongest aspect of this picture, the costuming and world-building, is off the charts. Similar to the enduring fantasy films that precede this (LOTR, Star Wars, Avatar for a few examples) the undersea kingdoms are a place I want to return to. They aren't just my world dressed up with CGI and the occasional costuming flourish; they're entirely foreign and endlessly inventive. Probably a solid third of the film is simply Aquaman, and the audience, being told about this world and shown it by Mera. While that may not be artistically prestigious strategy for engaging audiences, it entertains and fascinates on a "turn off your brain and look at those pretty colors" sort of way. There's a simple glee in seeing sharks ridden like horses or an octopus pounding a war-time set of drums.
I always offer the disclaimer when writing about nerdy films that I love which is this: I am a nerd. While I wasn't particularly attached to Aquaman growing up; his journey, the nature of this sort of film and the cinematic universe he will be growing into are fundamentally important to me, and I like to embrace that bias rather than keep it in check with reduced ratings or "objective" analysis. Whether it be a giant, confusing and chaotic battle between underwater armies or the horrifying descent into "the trench"; you'll always find me looking up at the screen like a little kid. Or moments like Arthur meeting Mera and confronting is past, or taking upon the role of king while wielding the trident; I just love that sort of stuff. I'm a sucker for these beats and this formula; and all signs point to this continuing. So while I may like it more than most; I'd mostly like to say Aquaman still distinguishes itself as a particularly goofy, sprawling, mythic, and metal experience that deserved to be seen on the big-screen, and to be celebrated as the fantasy film it is. It's a great time, and a nice addition to the DC film franchise.
Instead Wan and the writers behind Aquaman intelligently focus on world-building and following the tried-and-true "heroic journey"; complete with initial rejection of a prophesied role, slow but steady immersion into said role's culture, recognition of the need for growth and change, and eventual assumption of role. It's been seen before and it'll be seen again. But what propels Aquaman ahead of other films like it is the energy that Wan imbues it with. It's goofy without undermining the sincerity of Arthur's journey. It's fast-paced and simple-minded without sacrificing the weight and universality of this particular hero's myth. It's loud and colorful and *full* of CGI everything without reducing itself to an over-commercialized, artless heap of nothingness.
It's a big-ass blockbuster with personality. Momoa has charisma to spare; he owns the physicality and irreverence of this new imagining of the king of the ocean perfectly. Amber Heard is sexy and badass as Mera; something of a victim of a forced romance but also a compelling and strong protagonist in her own right. Patrick Wilson as Oceanmaster (call me....Oceanmaster) is given enough screen-time to develop that he's more than a punching bag for Aquaman; but actually a character with ambitions and a defined, fleshed-out purpose. The origin segment is tightly done and more than enough to set the stage for what is to come. And probably the strongest aspect of this picture, the costuming and world-building, is off the charts. Similar to the enduring fantasy films that precede this (LOTR, Star Wars, Avatar for a few examples) the undersea kingdoms are a place I want to return to. They aren't just my world dressed up with CGI and the occasional costuming flourish; they're entirely foreign and endlessly inventive. Probably a solid third of the film is simply Aquaman, and the audience, being told about this world and shown it by Mera. While that may not be artistically prestigious strategy for engaging audiences, it entertains and fascinates on a "turn off your brain and look at those pretty colors" sort of way. There's a simple glee in seeing sharks ridden like horses or an octopus pounding a war-time set of drums.
I always offer the disclaimer when writing about nerdy films that I love which is this: I am a nerd. While I wasn't particularly attached to Aquaman growing up; his journey, the nature of this sort of film and the cinematic universe he will be growing into are fundamentally important to me, and I like to embrace that bias rather than keep it in check with reduced ratings or "objective" analysis. Whether it be a giant, confusing and chaotic battle between underwater armies or the horrifying descent into "the trench"; you'll always find me looking up at the screen like a little kid. Or moments like Arthur meeting Mera and confronting is past, or taking upon the role of king while wielding the trident; I just love that sort of stuff. I'm a sucker for these beats and this formula; and all signs point to this continuing. So while I may like it more than most; I'd mostly like to say Aquaman still distinguishes itself as a particularly goofy, sprawling, mythic, and metal experience that deserved to be seen on the big-screen, and to be celebrated as the fantasy film it is. It's a great time, and a nice addition to the DC film franchise.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nocturnal Animals (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the crisis into mid-life crisis.
“Do you think your life has turned into something you never intended?” So asks Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) to her young assistant, who obviously looks baffled. “Of course, not – you’re still young”. Susan is in a mid-life crisis. While successful within the opulent Los Angeles art scene her personal life is crashing to the ground around her: her marriage (to Hutton (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) ) appears to be cooling fast amid financial worries.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow – what a surprise.
Sometimes I can get very irritated by a trailer for giving too much away (case in point, “Room” – which I recut – and more recently “Passengers”). Sometimes I can get very excited by a really good teaser trailer (case in point, “10 Cloverfield Lane”). But most of the time a “ho hum” trailer typically drives the expectation of a “ho hum” film: “Jack Reacher: Never Look Back” being a good recent example. Then there is “Arrival”…
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.