Search
Shadow Fight Battle Warriors 2
Games and Entertainment
App
Shadow Fight Battle: Super Hero Warriors Legend - The popular VS fighting game on Apple Store. ...
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.
Art Of Brick Laying
Productivity and Reference
App
This is a series of 236 tuitional and informative videos all on the art of brick laying and more! ...
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Flash (2023) in Movies
Jun 7, 2023
Amidst numerous delays and offscreen speculations about the fate of the movie, Director Andy Muschietti has finally seen his big-screen adaptation of DC Comics "The Flash" arrive.
We first saw the film in late April at Cinemacon and now that we have seen the final cut with additional footage and a noticing credits, I can finally give you my impressions.
The movie opens with Barry Allen (Ezra Miller), called into action to help with an issue in Gotham City which offers a chance for an extended action scene as well as some cameo appearances that should delight fans.
Like most superheroes, Barry has to contend with work and personal issues and his time as the Flash often makes him late for work and even more of a social outcast than he already is. And the arrival of an old school friend reminds him that his father is scheduled to have a court appearance on appeal of his conviction for murdering his wife many years earlier. Barry is obsessed with proving his father's innocence however there is little evidence that can support his appeal.
Despite warnings not to alter time, Barry travels to the past to make a slight adjustment which results in his mother living and growing up in a two-parent household for himself.
His euphoria becomes short-lived when Barry runs into a younger version of himself and realizes that if he does not enable his younger self with his powers, then he will never exist to create the alternate reality where his parents are safe and happy.
The younger Barry is extremely immature and annoying and when he becomes confused with powers while the other loses them, there are numerous opportunities for comic mayhem which the film briefly touches upon before returning to the more serious aspects of the story.
As he was warned, Barry has created fractions in reality, and the one that he finds himself in has several changes from the one that knows including a world free of superpowered beings. This becomes a serious problem when General Zod (Michael Shannon) arrives and there is no Superman or Justice League to save the day.
In an act of desperation, Barry seeks out Batman (Michael Keaton), and is shocked to discover that he is different than the one that he knows in his reality. Both Barrys and Batman hatch a plan of desperation that sees them desperately mounting a rescue and offensive to save humanity.
The film has some fantastic visual effects but like most hero films becomes heavily bogged down on them in a final act that in many ways seems at times anticlimactic to the potential that the story has been building to. Miller is solid as the two Barrys although the younger version of them becomes very annoying and at times and some segments drag on.
Keaton absolutely steals the film and brings a much-needed presence to the action as he seems to really be enjoying his return to the role and his segments are often the most compelling parts of the film as he provides a stabilizing and grounding presence to the Barrys.
There are numerous cameos throughout the film that I will not spoil but suffice it to say they should delight fans and do offer some intriguing questions.
The biggest issue now is the future of the character as Gunn and Saffron are busy building their DC universe while outside projects currently are in the works. It is not a secret that legal issues and outside distractions have been associated with Miller to the point where some question whether the film could be released despite its lavish budget.
The final box office numbers will be very interesting because I found the film quite enjoyable and a pleasant surprise in one of the better DC cinematic efforts notwithstanding the final act which became a bit formulaic and anticlimactic for my liking. While it doesn't approach the level of several of the Marvel films, it does show that there is plenty of potential to make solid stories within the DC universe.
4 stars out of 5
We first saw the film in late April at Cinemacon and now that we have seen the final cut with additional footage and a noticing credits, I can finally give you my impressions.
The movie opens with Barry Allen (Ezra Miller), called into action to help with an issue in Gotham City which offers a chance for an extended action scene as well as some cameo appearances that should delight fans.
Like most superheroes, Barry has to contend with work and personal issues and his time as the Flash often makes him late for work and even more of a social outcast than he already is. And the arrival of an old school friend reminds him that his father is scheduled to have a court appearance on appeal of his conviction for murdering his wife many years earlier. Barry is obsessed with proving his father's innocence however there is little evidence that can support his appeal.
Despite warnings not to alter time, Barry travels to the past to make a slight adjustment which results in his mother living and growing up in a two-parent household for himself.
His euphoria becomes short-lived when Barry runs into a younger version of himself and realizes that if he does not enable his younger self with his powers, then he will never exist to create the alternate reality where his parents are safe and happy.
The younger Barry is extremely immature and annoying and when he becomes confused with powers while the other loses them, there are numerous opportunities for comic mayhem which the film briefly touches upon before returning to the more serious aspects of the story.
As he was warned, Barry has created fractions in reality, and the one that he finds himself in has several changes from the one that knows including a world free of superpowered beings. This becomes a serious problem when General Zod (Michael Shannon) arrives and there is no Superman or Justice League to save the day.
In an act of desperation, Barry seeks out Batman (Michael Keaton), and is shocked to discover that he is different than the one that he knows in his reality. Both Barrys and Batman hatch a plan of desperation that sees them desperately mounting a rescue and offensive to save humanity.
The film has some fantastic visual effects but like most hero films becomes heavily bogged down on them in a final act that in many ways seems at times anticlimactic to the potential that the story has been building to. Miller is solid as the two Barrys although the younger version of them becomes very annoying and at times and some segments drag on.
Keaton absolutely steals the film and brings a much-needed presence to the action as he seems to really be enjoying his return to the role and his segments are often the most compelling parts of the film as he provides a stabilizing and grounding presence to the Barrys.
There are numerous cameos throughout the film that I will not spoil but suffice it to say they should delight fans and do offer some intriguing questions.
The biggest issue now is the future of the character as Gunn and Saffron are busy building their DC universe while outside projects currently are in the works. It is not a secret that legal issues and outside distractions have been associated with Miller to the point where some question whether the film could be released despite its lavish budget.
The final box office numbers will be very interesting because I found the film quite enjoyable and a pleasant surprise in one of the better DC cinematic efforts notwithstanding the final act which became a bit formulaic and anticlimactic for my liking. While it doesn't approach the level of several of the Marvel films, it does show that there is plenty of potential to make solid stories within the DC universe.
4 stars out of 5
Ross (3282 KP) rated Perfect Death in Books
Sep 28, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have debated with myself over a rating for this, the third in the "DI Luc Callanach" series of Edinburgh police procedurals. While the overall story is definitely a 4 star, verging on 5, certain aspects of the dialogue in this one were a little jarring at times, and the plot hinged on a couple of very out of character decisions on the part of the murderer.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Darkness Superhero Style
Thoughts on Brightburn
Characters – Tori is adopted mother of Brandon, she sees him as a blessing and will defending him through any troubles he finds himself in. she does enjoy painting which does seem to be her way to unwind and through the 12th year of Brandon, she is left wondering if he is like her or it is something else controlling him. Kyle is the husband a farmer, he does have to give his son ‘the talk’ which is one of the funniest scenes of the film, he has taught Brandon responsibility and does become the overreacting parent through the situations, a nice spin on the normal. Brandon is the young boy/alien that has bee raised like a normal child, he is social awkward, a loner at school, even his 12th birthday party is in a diner with his family, no friends. Once he starts hearing noises he gets drawn to his craft, which will be the beginning of his newly discovered powers. The powers his has will make him a danger not just to his town, but to the world because they are limitless. We do have other characters including the Aunt and her husband, the fellow students that see Brandon as an outsider and the sheriff trying to figure out the crimes that have been happening around the town.
Performances – Elizabeth Banks does bring us a great performance, we see the undying love of a mother against the shadows of what her child’s true nature is, constantly conflicted through the film. David Denman brings us the father figure, he plays this opposite to the normal because usually we don’t see the weakness or fear in a father and David brings this requirement to the role. Jackson A Dunn is the true star of the show here, he makes young Brandon feel both terrifying and welcoming, as in needing help or a friend, he has moments of being creepy, while moments of pure calmness.
Story – The story here follows a couple that adopt a young boy who feel from space, it seems like everything is going well, until he reaches 12 and his true powers start to come out, leaving the parents in the difficult position of loving their son or turning over a monster that could destroy the world. This story does take the superhero genre in a new direction, we can clearly see how the origin or Brandon place the same as Superman, coming from space adopted and learning about powers, while this time we take a dramatic turn towards the darker side of powers. We do go through the learning process like new superheroes would go through, this is important. The only downside with the story, comes from the ideas that Brandon could be in the pivotal position on which side of good or evil he falls on, only we don’t get to see any hint that he could ever be good. Away from this minor negative, we do see a horror story unfold that becomes bigger and more devasting as the powers become clearer.
Horror/Sci-Fi – The horror in this film comes from the power that Brandon is having, we see what he does to people, with each injury becomes more graphic and shocking as the rampage goes on. The sci-fi elements of the film focus on the idea that Brandon has come from space, we simply don’t know what he could be capable off.
Settings – Th film is set in a small town of Brightburn, it is a close community which is left in shock after the first incident, Brandon however is raised on a small farm which shows that his isolation isn’t just school, but home too.
Special Effects – When we look at the effects, we have some brilliant injury effects, that are front and centre and will make you want to look away, a few of the flying moments are not the best, but they are not what the scenes are focused on at the time.
Scene of the Movie – Uncle Noah’s car trip.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It would have been nice to see him have a chance to be good.
Final Thoughts – This is a dark superhero movie, unlike anything we have seen before, it feels original, while playing opposite to what we know and isn’t afraid to spill a little blood.
Overall: The Dark Universe has Started.
Rating
Characters – Tori is adopted mother of Brandon, she sees him as a blessing and will defending him through any troubles he finds himself in. she does enjoy painting which does seem to be her way to unwind and through the 12th year of Brandon, she is left wondering if he is like her or it is something else controlling him. Kyle is the husband a farmer, he does have to give his son ‘the talk’ which is one of the funniest scenes of the film, he has taught Brandon responsibility and does become the overreacting parent through the situations, a nice spin on the normal. Brandon is the young boy/alien that has bee raised like a normal child, he is social awkward, a loner at school, even his 12th birthday party is in a diner with his family, no friends. Once he starts hearing noises he gets drawn to his craft, which will be the beginning of his newly discovered powers. The powers his has will make him a danger not just to his town, but to the world because they are limitless. We do have other characters including the Aunt and her husband, the fellow students that see Brandon as an outsider and the sheriff trying to figure out the crimes that have been happening around the town.
Performances – Elizabeth Banks does bring us a great performance, we see the undying love of a mother against the shadows of what her child’s true nature is, constantly conflicted through the film. David Denman brings us the father figure, he plays this opposite to the normal because usually we don’t see the weakness or fear in a father and David brings this requirement to the role. Jackson A Dunn is the true star of the show here, he makes young Brandon feel both terrifying and welcoming, as in needing help or a friend, he has moments of being creepy, while moments of pure calmness.
Story – The story here follows a couple that adopt a young boy who feel from space, it seems like everything is going well, until he reaches 12 and his true powers start to come out, leaving the parents in the difficult position of loving their son or turning over a monster that could destroy the world. This story does take the superhero genre in a new direction, we can clearly see how the origin or Brandon place the same as Superman, coming from space adopted and learning about powers, while this time we take a dramatic turn towards the darker side of powers. We do go through the learning process like new superheroes would go through, this is important. The only downside with the story, comes from the ideas that Brandon could be in the pivotal position on which side of good or evil he falls on, only we don’t get to see any hint that he could ever be good. Away from this minor negative, we do see a horror story unfold that becomes bigger and more devasting as the powers become clearer.
Horror/Sci-Fi – The horror in this film comes from the power that Brandon is having, we see what he does to people, with each injury becomes more graphic and shocking as the rampage goes on. The sci-fi elements of the film focus on the idea that Brandon has come from space, we simply don’t know what he could be capable off.
Settings – Th film is set in a small town of Brightburn, it is a close community which is left in shock after the first incident, Brandon however is raised on a small farm which shows that his isolation isn’t just school, but home too.
Special Effects – When we look at the effects, we have some brilliant injury effects, that are front and centre and will make you want to look away, a few of the flying moments are not the best, but they are not what the scenes are focused on at the time.
Scene of the Movie – Uncle Noah’s car trip.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It would have been nice to see him have a chance to be good.
Final Thoughts – This is a dark superhero movie, unlike anything we have seen before, it feels original, while playing opposite to what we know and isn’t afraid to spill a little blood.
Overall: The Dark Universe has Started.
Rating