Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Incredible Hulk (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Anyone familiar with the comic book or the TV series that starred the late Bill Bixby will be familiar with the setup of “The Incredible Hulk,” the new film version of the classic tale by director Louis Leterrier of “The Transporter” fame.
For those of you unfamiliar with the tale, after Dr. Banner (Edward Norton), is exposed to an accidental overdose of Gamma radiation his body chemistry is altered in such a way that he transforms into a large, green, and destructive creature when he is angered.
Naturally, this puts him at odds with the authorities and the military; thus, Banner is forced to live a vagabond existence while he searches for a way to contain his inner rage.
As the film opens, Banner has already has his accident, and this is shown via a series of clips during the opening credits. Living a simple life in Brazil, Banner works as a laborer in a bottling plant, and attempts to keep as low a profile as he possible can.
Banner communicates in secret via encrypted IM’s with a person he knows as Mr. Blue, and he hopes to extract the creature from his body by means of a plant. Mr. Blue offers Banner some ways to help his problem, but insists that he needs to seek more drastic treatment steps and needs to open up with him and let him try to help.
Since the military was funding his experiments and has huge interest in the creature Banner becomes, he decides the risk is too great and continues to find a cure in secret while he works on methods to control his anger via meditation.
Despite his best efforts, Banner is discovered by General Ross (William Hurt), who is the person in command of the program that Banner used to lead and dispatches a team led by a special operative named Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), attempt to capture Banner. Things do not go as planned, and the attempt only succeeds in angering Banner who transforms into the Hulk with devastating results.
Forced to flee once again, Banner travels back to the United States in an effort to find Mr. Blue in order to rid the menace inside him.
Things become even more complicated for Banner when Blonsky and General Ross decide that Blonsky should seek physical enhancements in an effort to combat the Hulk, and begin a series of treatments that increase Brodsky’s strength and abilities.
Banner finds refuge with an old friend, and soon runs into his old flame Betty (Liv Tyler), whom he has avoided since the accident in an effort to protect her for the potential danger within him.
Fate is soon to step in, and Banner will soon find himself on the run with Betty, but facing the General and his troops as well as a threat even more dangerous than The Hulk.
The new version of the film is light years ahead of the disaster that was the Ang Lee directed film. Norton despite being a soft spoken individual has much more charisma for the part than did Eric Bana as he mixed pathos and humor to make Banner a well- rounded and more believable character. Since Norton co-wrote the script with Zack Penn, he clearly has put a lot of preparation in the characters as despite being comic book characters; they have more depth and humanity than most genre film characters do.
This allows the audience to become better immersed with the characters as his Banner is not some egghead whom the audience cannot connect with, but a real flesh and blood being who is dealing with extra ordinary circumstances.
Roth is solid as the greasy and power mad Blonsky and Hurt and Tyler do well with characters that would normally be stock parts in similar films.
What really impressed me besides the story and FX was the solid acting by Norton as well as the abundant respect for the source material. The film has very clever cameos by Stan Lee, Lou Ferrigno, as well as Bill Bixby which fit and does not come across as cheesy.
Without spoiling the surprise, there is a very nice moment at the end of the film that sets up future adventures as with the recent success of “Iron Man”, I for one and looking forward to more quality films about the Marvel Comics characters in the future, and especially more outings for Big Green.
For those of you unfamiliar with the tale, after Dr. Banner (Edward Norton), is exposed to an accidental overdose of Gamma radiation his body chemistry is altered in such a way that he transforms into a large, green, and destructive creature when he is angered.
Naturally, this puts him at odds with the authorities and the military; thus, Banner is forced to live a vagabond existence while he searches for a way to contain his inner rage.
As the film opens, Banner has already has his accident, and this is shown via a series of clips during the opening credits. Living a simple life in Brazil, Banner works as a laborer in a bottling plant, and attempts to keep as low a profile as he possible can.
Banner communicates in secret via encrypted IM’s with a person he knows as Mr. Blue, and he hopes to extract the creature from his body by means of a plant. Mr. Blue offers Banner some ways to help his problem, but insists that he needs to seek more drastic treatment steps and needs to open up with him and let him try to help.
Since the military was funding his experiments and has huge interest in the creature Banner becomes, he decides the risk is too great and continues to find a cure in secret while he works on methods to control his anger via meditation.
Despite his best efforts, Banner is discovered by General Ross (William Hurt), who is the person in command of the program that Banner used to lead and dispatches a team led by a special operative named Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), attempt to capture Banner. Things do not go as planned, and the attempt only succeeds in angering Banner who transforms into the Hulk with devastating results.
Forced to flee once again, Banner travels back to the United States in an effort to find Mr. Blue in order to rid the menace inside him.
Things become even more complicated for Banner when Blonsky and General Ross decide that Blonsky should seek physical enhancements in an effort to combat the Hulk, and begin a series of treatments that increase Brodsky’s strength and abilities.
Banner finds refuge with an old friend, and soon runs into his old flame Betty (Liv Tyler), whom he has avoided since the accident in an effort to protect her for the potential danger within him.
Fate is soon to step in, and Banner will soon find himself on the run with Betty, but facing the General and his troops as well as a threat even more dangerous than The Hulk.
The new version of the film is light years ahead of the disaster that was the Ang Lee directed film. Norton despite being a soft spoken individual has much more charisma for the part than did Eric Bana as he mixed pathos and humor to make Banner a well- rounded and more believable character. Since Norton co-wrote the script with Zack Penn, he clearly has put a lot of preparation in the characters as despite being comic book characters; they have more depth and humanity than most genre film characters do.
This allows the audience to become better immersed with the characters as his Banner is not some egghead whom the audience cannot connect with, but a real flesh and blood being who is dealing with extra ordinary circumstances.
Roth is solid as the greasy and power mad Blonsky and Hurt and Tyler do well with characters that would normally be stock parts in similar films.
What really impressed me besides the story and FX was the solid acting by Norton as well as the abundant respect for the source material. The film has very clever cameos by Stan Lee, Lou Ferrigno, as well as Bill Bixby which fit and does not come across as cheesy.
Without spoiling the surprise, there is a very nice moment at the end of the film that sets up future adventures as with the recent success of “Iron Man”, I for one and looking forward to more quality films about the Marvel Comics characters in the future, and especially more outings for Big Green.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Zombieland (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Columbus is a loner in every sense of the word. He usually spent his nights indoors playing World of Warcraft, so it's safe to say he probably didn't get out much. He wasn't even all that close to his family. So when the zombie apocalypse finally began to spread across the globe, Columbus already had an advantage over the majority of the population. In addition to that, Columbus had a lot of weird phobias (like clowns and those wet towels they use to wipe down tables at big restaurants). As his experience with the undead grew, so did his list of rules on how to survive in Zombieland. Columbus is on his way to Ohio, where his parents reside, hoping that by some miracle they're still alive. Before he can get very far, he runs into the first human face he's seen since the outbreak, Tallahassee. Tallahassee seems to be fearless, lives life in the moment, and worries about consequences later. His hatred for zombies bleeds through so much that his zombie killing ways are practically down to a fine art. What starts out as a potential ride to get him to his final destination could wind up being everything Columbus has ever wanted and that's a family that he feels comfortable with.
Zombieland somehow managed to breathe life into an aspect of horror I thought dried up along with George A. Romero's career and that's zombies. What started out as a fairly fresh idea has been milked dry with every situation going in every possibly way you could think of. You know Zombieland is going to be a bit different as soon as the movie begins. Columbus does a rundown of some of the most important rules he's learned while living in Zombieland leading up to the credits playing over slow-motion scenes of people being chased and eaten by zombies with "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Metallica playing the entire time. The cinematography and the way the characters on screen interact with the letters in the opening credits is incredible. Blood splattering on the screen, glass shattering, and the way everything seems to be jumping out at you. To be honest, it's probably one of my favorite openings to any film ever.
Jesse Eisenberg's character Columbus immediately made me think of Michael Cera when I first saw the trailer. It's a role that's so similar to the roles he's played in the past and I found it kinda funny that a new trailer of Cera's was attached to this film. After that first reaction though, it didn't really bother me. In fact, the entire cast does an incredible job with the roles they play. Woody Harrelson is fantastic and steals a good portion of scenes as Tallahassee. With everything else going on, Tallahassee is on this quest to find a Twinkie and it's pretty hilarious watching him lose it whenever he can't find them. Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin as Wichita and Little Rock add more to the film when they're acting as a sisterly team rather than when they have scenes separately later on. Their cons are pretty spectacular and priceless in execution.
One of the most interesting factors of the film was something that made its way online two weeks before the film was even released. Zombieland originally started as a TV pilot. Before the cast we're familiar with now was set, Patrick Swayze was going to cameo as a zombie and there were several moments paying homage to Ghost that just sounded amazing and comical. They actually had several people in mind to cameo in the film. The actor they wound up going with is wonderful in their own right, gets plenty of screen time, and manages to steal quite a few laughs, but the Patrick Swayze zombie would've been just as good if not a bit better considering the circumstances.
The finale of the film that takes place in an amusement park is one of the best closing sequences to a zombie film ever. It's surprising no other zombie film has gone that route. The way the rides and carnival attractions are incorporated into zombie execution is marvelous in itself.
Zombieland is witty horror entertainment with a great cast and clever cinematography. A roller coaster ride you immediately want to ride again as soon as its over. What's surprising is it might just wind up being the best all around horror film to come out this year. As the tagline says, I strongly urge each and every one of you to "nut up or shut up."
Zombieland somehow managed to breathe life into an aspect of horror I thought dried up along with George A. Romero's career and that's zombies. What started out as a fairly fresh idea has been milked dry with every situation going in every possibly way you could think of. You know Zombieland is going to be a bit different as soon as the movie begins. Columbus does a rundown of some of the most important rules he's learned while living in Zombieland leading up to the credits playing over slow-motion scenes of people being chased and eaten by zombies with "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Metallica playing the entire time. The cinematography and the way the characters on screen interact with the letters in the opening credits is incredible. Blood splattering on the screen, glass shattering, and the way everything seems to be jumping out at you. To be honest, it's probably one of my favorite openings to any film ever.
Jesse Eisenberg's character Columbus immediately made me think of Michael Cera when I first saw the trailer. It's a role that's so similar to the roles he's played in the past and I found it kinda funny that a new trailer of Cera's was attached to this film. After that first reaction though, it didn't really bother me. In fact, the entire cast does an incredible job with the roles they play. Woody Harrelson is fantastic and steals a good portion of scenes as Tallahassee. With everything else going on, Tallahassee is on this quest to find a Twinkie and it's pretty hilarious watching him lose it whenever he can't find them. Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin as Wichita and Little Rock add more to the film when they're acting as a sisterly team rather than when they have scenes separately later on. Their cons are pretty spectacular and priceless in execution.
One of the most interesting factors of the film was something that made its way online two weeks before the film was even released. Zombieland originally started as a TV pilot. Before the cast we're familiar with now was set, Patrick Swayze was going to cameo as a zombie and there were several moments paying homage to Ghost that just sounded amazing and comical. They actually had several people in mind to cameo in the film. The actor they wound up going with is wonderful in their own right, gets plenty of screen time, and manages to steal quite a few laughs, but the Patrick Swayze zombie would've been just as good if not a bit better considering the circumstances.
The finale of the film that takes place in an amusement park is one of the best closing sequences to a zombie film ever. It's surprising no other zombie film has gone that route. The way the rides and carnival attractions are incorporated into zombie execution is marvelous in itself.
Zombieland is witty horror entertainment with a great cast and clever cinematography. A roller coaster ride you immediately want to ride again as soon as its over. What's surprising is it might just wind up being the best all around horror film to come out this year. As the tagline says, I strongly urge each and every one of you to "nut up or shut up."
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mid90s (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
At 1 hour 25 minutes you'd be forgiven for thinking this would be a brief affair, but if you're not into it then this 85-minute film is agonisingly long.
Going into this the only thing I knew about this film was that it was directed by Jonah Hill, and I like him so that felt like something positive.
31 people had booked to see this preview at my Cineworld, I think there were maybe 10 of us that showed up. I have to say that there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm from any of us until it was time to leave.
Kudos on going with the 4:3 look on the screen and the grainier quality on the filming (I'm sure there are technical terms for that but I don't know them!) That combined with accurate costumes and settings to really take you back to the 90s. I found the smaller aspect to be rather distracting on the big screen though. I watch 4:3 a lot at home on my widescreen TV without it seeming odd, perhaps this is just one of those things, I go so often that I'm probably just expecting it to fill the whole screen.
The film starts with a particularly jarring scene, and while I don't have an issue with that shock impact I don't like that there's no context. You can infer things later on, but at no point do you explicitly find out the reason behind some of the shocking scenes. The film feels much more like we've been plonked down into his life rather than learning about it.
It's difficult to sum up how I feel about the characters.
Sunny Suljic is fine in the main role but there wasn't anything that wowed me from the role. That's no slur on the acting, I just didn't feel that the dialogue or story gave us more than a glance at his life.
Ray came across as the strongest out of all the skaters, we see a few different aspects of him and he gets a proper chance to open up. Had all the characters had this opportunity then I think we'd have had something much more interesting... but then teenage boys aren't notoriously fans of opening up emotionally on screen unless we're in a romantic film.
Those of you who read my reviews will know how I feel about Lucas Hedges, that is to say, I don't really get it. This role offers little backstory apart from the fact that he clearly has a long passion for beating the crap out of his brother, Stevie. Despite my growing indifference for him I feel like Hedges wasn't given enough time in the movie. I can see why he wasn't, Ian is hyper-aggressive and a very threatening presence so having more of him would have changed the dynamic a lot. Having more of him though might have allowed us to understand him a little bit more and take away some of the unanswered questions at the end of the film.
There are a lot of scenes with drug use and alcohol, and I can see those being relevant to the story, but the "sex" scene was uncomfortable and really didn't feel like it fit in at all. From the moment you see it coming to the point where the boys are prying out details of the encounter I sat there wondering why. Why it needed to be there and why the script was just so bad through it.
The ending was the only part of the film that actually made me feel anything for the characters and the events. That in itself is quite an achievement being that you can tell exactly what is coming. The way the final event is handled was visually striking and leads us into a moment where all the characters get to show something that finally feels like genuine emotion. I think it says a lot that the most effective bits of the film had no dialogue in them. The events at the end of this film saved Mid90s from getting one of the lowest ratings in my reviewing history.
I'd say that had they given over an extra 20 minutes to better character development then this would have been better, but I worry that an extra 20 minutes would just have made the event even more excruciating.
What you should do
I'm sure this has it's audience somewhere, after all, people seem to be raving about it. Sadly I am not that audience and I really can't recommend this to anyone.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I love the idea of making customer skateboards.
Going into this the only thing I knew about this film was that it was directed by Jonah Hill, and I like him so that felt like something positive.
31 people had booked to see this preview at my Cineworld, I think there were maybe 10 of us that showed up. I have to say that there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm from any of us until it was time to leave.
Kudos on going with the 4:3 look on the screen and the grainier quality on the filming (I'm sure there are technical terms for that but I don't know them!) That combined with accurate costumes and settings to really take you back to the 90s. I found the smaller aspect to be rather distracting on the big screen though. I watch 4:3 a lot at home on my widescreen TV without it seeming odd, perhaps this is just one of those things, I go so often that I'm probably just expecting it to fill the whole screen.
The film starts with a particularly jarring scene, and while I don't have an issue with that shock impact I don't like that there's no context. You can infer things later on, but at no point do you explicitly find out the reason behind some of the shocking scenes. The film feels much more like we've been plonked down into his life rather than learning about it.
It's difficult to sum up how I feel about the characters.
Sunny Suljic is fine in the main role but there wasn't anything that wowed me from the role. That's no slur on the acting, I just didn't feel that the dialogue or story gave us more than a glance at his life.
Ray came across as the strongest out of all the skaters, we see a few different aspects of him and he gets a proper chance to open up. Had all the characters had this opportunity then I think we'd have had something much more interesting... but then teenage boys aren't notoriously fans of opening up emotionally on screen unless we're in a romantic film.
Those of you who read my reviews will know how I feel about Lucas Hedges, that is to say, I don't really get it. This role offers little backstory apart from the fact that he clearly has a long passion for beating the crap out of his brother, Stevie. Despite my growing indifference for him I feel like Hedges wasn't given enough time in the movie. I can see why he wasn't, Ian is hyper-aggressive and a very threatening presence so having more of him would have changed the dynamic a lot. Having more of him though might have allowed us to understand him a little bit more and take away some of the unanswered questions at the end of the film.
There are a lot of scenes with drug use and alcohol, and I can see those being relevant to the story, but the "sex" scene was uncomfortable and really didn't feel like it fit in at all. From the moment you see it coming to the point where the boys are prying out details of the encounter I sat there wondering why. Why it needed to be there and why the script was just so bad through it.
The ending was the only part of the film that actually made me feel anything for the characters and the events. That in itself is quite an achievement being that you can tell exactly what is coming. The way the final event is handled was visually striking and leads us into a moment where all the characters get to show something that finally feels like genuine emotion. I think it says a lot that the most effective bits of the film had no dialogue in them. The events at the end of this film saved Mid90s from getting one of the lowest ratings in my reviewing history.
I'd say that had they given over an extra 20 minutes to better character development then this would have been better, but I worry that an extra 20 minutes would just have made the event even more excruciating.
What you should do
I'm sure this has it's audience somewhere, after all, people seem to be raving about it. Sadly I am not that audience and I really can't recommend this to anyone.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I love the idea of making customer skateboards.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
"Anything mentionable is manageable"
Tom Hanks' new movie is a film I personally struggled to fully engage with. But some I suspect will truly LOVE it's gentle and feel-good nature.
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Dec 20, 2019 (Updated Jan 22, 2020)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Right then... I definitely need to go and see this again to properly digest it, so my thoughts on it will probably change...
Just like TLJ before it, there are things that I liked about Rise of Skywalker, and plenty that I didn't. There are also parts that I liked overall, but we're executed poorly - this unfortunately seems to be what to expect from Star Wars these days.
The opening act of ROS, so let's say the first 40ish minutes, felt like a complete mess to me. We are thrown from scene to scene without having much time to catch breath. It feels panicky, and not in a good way.
It not really until the-bit-from-the-trailer-where-rey-jumps-over-a-tie-fighter that the narrative seems to just calm down a bit and find it's footing.
What follows is a mixed bag of humour and mild action which is a bit so so, slowly leading up to the films finale.
I have to say, I actually really enjoyed the majority of the third act. The action scene that takes place on Endor is fantastic. It looks amazing, some of the visual shots are great, and the choreography just about resists falling into prequel territory lightsaber battles.
The final battle, again is visually stunning, and though at times corny, I felt it was a suitable end scene for the saga.
In terms of characters - I once again enjoyed Rey, even i was left undecided with how her arc was left off - the same goes for Kylo Ren, and once again, Adam Driver was a massive highlight throughout.
However, I once again found myself struggling to like Finn and Poe, and it seems that after the events of TFA, both of these characters were just a bit of dead weight, still included in the larger narrative because the actors had signed contracts. Finn runs into a group of defective stormtroopers at one point, and the movie sort of half-arses them into the story, but they ultimately serve no real purpose.
The narrative is also guilty of setting up a potentially important plot beat between him and Rey, which is eventually dropped and forgotten without mention.
Leia's story felt a bit unfleshed, and that surely down to the limited footage they had to work with.
There are two moments that stuck out when it comes to bad execution - the reveal of Rey's lineage is sudden and questionable, but the dialogue used when Kylo Ren delivers the revealing line is laughable, and spoils any weight the moment may have otherwise had. The second is when we are inevitably introduced to Luke's force ghost, a moment that has been coming since the events of TLJ, is delivered with a fan-service line referencing the moment where he threw his lightsaber away at the start of said film, and this bring me to one of my main criticisms of ROS.
I was not the biggest fan of TLJ, but as I mentioned in my review for it, I have a lot of respect for Rian Johnson for trying something new, and ROS reverses a lot of what he did. It feels a bit disrespectful, and a bit spineless.
This also happens a few more times in regards to plot points to do with Chewbacca, and C3-PO - the narrative sets up a fairly ballsy move, and then reverses it and plays it safe. It's a little frustrating.
Palpatines return is something that I can just about get behind - he looked suitably terrifying - but I just wish that the groundwork had been put down a bit more in previous films (films, not the TV shows). Instead, it does have a bit of a desperate ret-con feel about it.
But enough moaning from me, have some more positives - the music score is once again fantastic, the visual effects and CGI are pretty damn good (barring a couple of dodgy shots here and there), and I once again enjoyed the locations that we visited.
Rise of Skywalker will no doubt be devisive, just like The Last Jedi, and it's a film filled to the brim with thrilling Star Wars moments, as well as really really stupid moments, but to be honest, I've come to expect no more and no less at this point. Go and see it for what it is, and try and have a good time, because for the most part, it's pretty entertaining sci-fi fluff.
Side note - Everytime Merry from Lord of the Rings popped up, I found it completely distracting...
Just like TLJ before it, there are things that I liked about Rise of Skywalker, and plenty that I didn't. There are also parts that I liked overall, but we're executed poorly - this unfortunately seems to be what to expect from Star Wars these days.
The opening act of ROS, so let's say the first 40ish minutes, felt like a complete mess to me. We are thrown from scene to scene without having much time to catch breath. It feels panicky, and not in a good way.
It not really until the-bit-from-the-trailer-where-rey-jumps-over-a-tie-fighter that the narrative seems to just calm down a bit and find it's footing.
What follows is a mixed bag of humour and mild action which is a bit so so, slowly leading up to the films finale.
I have to say, I actually really enjoyed the majority of the third act. The action scene that takes place on Endor is fantastic. It looks amazing, some of the visual shots are great, and the choreography just about resists falling into prequel territory lightsaber battles.
The final battle, again is visually stunning, and though at times corny, I felt it was a suitable end scene for the saga.
In terms of characters - I once again enjoyed Rey, even i was left undecided with how her arc was left off - the same goes for Kylo Ren, and once again, Adam Driver was a massive highlight throughout.
However, I once again found myself struggling to like Finn and Poe, and it seems that after the events of TFA, both of these characters were just a bit of dead weight, still included in the larger narrative because the actors had signed contracts. Finn runs into a group of defective stormtroopers at one point, and the movie sort of half-arses them into the story, but they ultimately serve no real purpose.
The narrative is also guilty of setting up a potentially important plot beat between him and Rey, which is eventually dropped and forgotten without mention.
Leia's story felt a bit unfleshed, and that surely down to the limited footage they had to work with.
There are two moments that stuck out when it comes to bad execution - the reveal of Rey's lineage is sudden and questionable, but the dialogue used when Kylo Ren delivers the revealing line is laughable, and spoils any weight the moment may have otherwise had. The second is when we are inevitably introduced to Luke's force ghost, a moment that has been coming since the events of TLJ, is delivered with a fan-service line referencing the moment where he threw his lightsaber away at the start of said film, and this bring me to one of my main criticisms of ROS.
I was not the biggest fan of TLJ, but as I mentioned in my review for it, I have a lot of respect for Rian Johnson for trying something new, and ROS reverses a lot of what he did. It feels a bit disrespectful, and a bit spineless.
This also happens a few more times in regards to plot points to do with Chewbacca, and C3-PO - the narrative sets up a fairly ballsy move, and then reverses it and plays it safe. It's a little frustrating.
Palpatines return is something that I can just about get behind - he looked suitably terrifying - but I just wish that the groundwork had been put down a bit more in previous films (films, not the TV shows). Instead, it does have a bit of a desperate ret-con feel about it.
But enough moaning from me, have some more positives - the music score is once again fantastic, the visual effects and CGI are pretty damn good (barring a couple of dodgy shots here and there), and I once again enjoyed the locations that we visited.
Rise of Skywalker will no doubt be devisive, just like The Last Jedi, and it's a film filled to the brim with thrilling Star Wars moments, as well as really really stupid moments, but to be honest, I've come to expect no more and no less at this point. Go and see it for what it is, and try and have a good time, because for the most part, it's pretty entertaining sci-fi fluff.
Side note - Everytime Merry from Lord of the Rings popped up, I found it completely distracting...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Little Joe (2019) in Movies
Feb 6, 2020
I managed to get a ticket to see this at the London Film Festival, it had made my long shortlist, the premise looked interesting and the graphics were extremely appealing. I was very excited to see what Little Joe had in store.
Alice is developing a new breed of flower, a beautiful crimson flower that has an incredible therapeutic value to its owner. Look after it properly, speak to it nicely, and it will make you happy.
After Alice sneaks one home to her son she soon notices that rather than a happy demeanour he starts acting strangely, and he's not the only one showing odd behaviour after being around Little Joe.
Little Joe has some very strong style choices. The colour palette is beautiful, and I wish I could find the notes I made about it from the Q&A after the film. The vibrant pastels are homely and comforting while at the same time unsettling around the normal tones of life.
That's what a lot of the film is made to do though, the music is something I noted frequently. The oriental music works directly against what's happening in the story, an intentional choice by the composer. I also wrote down the word "whistling" a lot with regards to sound. While I can understand (sort of) why the composer went that way with the music I didn't feel like it worked. I didn't dislike the music itself, but my comments were mainly exclaiming that it stuck out and felt too different from everything around it that it became distracting.
Another piece of the film that didn't sit well with me was camera work. There are some very well shot scenes, when we first encounter Little Joe in Alice's home and a scene later on inside the greenhouse (that I won't go into because of spoilers), that draw the viewer in with intrigue. But then... you know when you're doing something and you get bored and realise you've drifted off looking at a point in the distance? The camera appears to get bored too and it'll zoom to the gaps between characters. Maybe I'm just programmed to expect this sort of shot to reveal something secret to the audience that the characters haven't noticed... I found it more distracting and annoying than having any artistic benefit.
Alice (Emily Beecham) has a dual mother role, firstly with her son Joe and secondly with her plants. Little Joe appears to be more like a son to her than her own flesh and blood, her scientific mind perhaps finding it easier to interact with an inanimate object that begins to defy what she knows to be possible. The film gets across her struggle quite well with her therapy sessions and the interactions with those around her as we get deeper into the story. Beecham's performance is... relaxed? Even when there's urgency nothing ever seems to be very urgent.
That's something that is common throughout, the pace plods. You would expect a somewhat subdued pace in this sort of invasion storyline, but there are no real points of climax and that makes it more of a meander... perhaps those exciting moments happened when the camera zoned out.
There are touches here and there that do make you hopeful for the film, but overall it feels like Little Joe went for subtle and took it slightly too far. Everything felt too calm, the only one that seemed to react as you'd expect was Bella, but the nature of her part of the story meant that this was over the top because it was so far from everything else.
I like the idea behind this and we know from many different films that this sort of thing can work, but the lack of a real punch anywhere made this a struggle to watch. Oddly, I think this would have worked as a limited series without a lot of changes. The slow pace wouldn't have been so evident if it was broken down into episodes, there are small peaks in there that would give just enough intrigue to hold over to the next episode, I even feel like the ending as it is would have worked more in this style. Sadly, as it was I don't feel like there was enough reward for the time invested in watching it as a film, there's a different expectation between and film and a TV series but it's very difficult to explain it here without revealing spoilers.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/little-joe-movie-review.html
Alice is developing a new breed of flower, a beautiful crimson flower that has an incredible therapeutic value to its owner. Look after it properly, speak to it nicely, and it will make you happy.
After Alice sneaks one home to her son she soon notices that rather than a happy demeanour he starts acting strangely, and he's not the only one showing odd behaviour after being around Little Joe.
Little Joe has some very strong style choices. The colour palette is beautiful, and I wish I could find the notes I made about it from the Q&A after the film. The vibrant pastels are homely and comforting while at the same time unsettling around the normal tones of life.
That's what a lot of the film is made to do though, the music is something I noted frequently. The oriental music works directly against what's happening in the story, an intentional choice by the composer. I also wrote down the word "whistling" a lot with regards to sound. While I can understand (sort of) why the composer went that way with the music I didn't feel like it worked. I didn't dislike the music itself, but my comments were mainly exclaiming that it stuck out and felt too different from everything around it that it became distracting.
Another piece of the film that didn't sit well with me was camera work. There are some very well shot scenes, when we first encounter Little Joe in Alice's home and a scene later on inside the greenhouse (that I won't go into because of spoilers), that draw the viewer in with intrigue. But then... you know when you're doing something and you get bored and realise you've drifted off looking at a point in the distance? The camera appears to get bored too and it'll zoom to the gaps between characters. Maybe I'm just programmed to expect this sort of shot to reveal something secret to the audience that the characters haven't noticed... I found it more distracting and annoying than having any artistic benefit.
Alice (Emily Beecham) has a dual mother role, firstly with her son Joe and secondly with her plants. Little Joe appears to be more like a son to her than her own flesh and blood, her scientific mind perhaps finding it easier to interact with an inanimate object that begins to defy what she knows to be possible. The film gets across her struggle quite well with her therapy sessions and the interactions with those around her as we get deeper into the story. Beecham's performance is... relaxed? Even when there's urgency nothing ever seems to be very urgent.
That's something that is common throughout, the pace plods. You would expect a somewhat subdued pace in this sort of invasion storyline, but there are no real points of climax and that makes it more of a meander... perhaps those exciting moments happened when the camera zoned out.
There are touches here and there that do make you hopeful for the film, but overall it feels like Little Joe went for subtle and took it slightly too far. Everything felt too calm, the only one that seemed to react as you'd expect was Bella, but the nature of her part of the story meant that this was over the top because it was so far from everything else.
I like the idea behind this and we know from many different films that this sort of thing can work, but the lack of a real punch anywhere made this a struggle to watch. Oddly, I think this would have worked as a limited series without a lot of changes. The slow pace wouldn't have been so evident if it was broken down into episodes, there are small peaks in there that would give just enough intrigue to hold over to the next episode, I even feel like the ending as it is would have worked more in this style. Sadly, as it was I don't feel like there was enough reward for the time invested in watching it as a film, there's a different expectation between and film and a TV series but it's very difficult to explain it here without revealing spoilers.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/little-joe-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Brick Mansions (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
3 weeks ago, I had never heard of this movie. I happened upon the commercial as I was watching TV
one day, and I was intrigued. Brick Mansions is touted as Paul Walker’s last complete movie, may he
rest his in peace. But I am really hoping that it’s not true. Because if it is, I really have to question some
of the filmmakers’ decisions.
Brick Mansions comes from the creative mind of Luc Besson, who happened to also write District B13
which this movie is a remake of. In fact, David Belle, who plays Leno in the movie, played the same role
in District B13. Leno is a man who lives in Brick Mansions, a highly-dilapidated area of Detroit in 2018,
who is trying to thwart the big boss in Brick Mansions, Tremaine (RZA), and keep drugs off the streets.
When Leno steals 20 Kilos of cocaine and destroys it, Tremaine kidnaps his ex-girlfriend to lure him in
and ultimately land him in jail. Damien (Paul Walker) is an undercover cop looking to take down the
organization that killed his father, who was also a cop. He traces it back to Tremaine, and desperately
wants to take him down. When a threat of a bomb going off that could obliterate Brick Mansions,
Damien is asked to infiltrate the city, and he must enlist the help of Leno to pull it off. As Damien and
Leno race against time to disarm the bomb, they realize that they may have misjudged each other, and
the threat at hand.
IMDB credits Belle as the founder of Parkour. I do not know if it is true or not, but the man definitely
makes it seems like it. The fight scenes were excellently choreographed, if not a bit cheesy at times
(Walker and Belle doing mirror image Parkour in perfect unison). It was nice to see the parity between
Damien’s style of getting things done Leno’s style, and the film was definitely not afraid to focus on
strengths. And it wouldn’t be a Paul Walker movie these days if the man didn’t have a driving/chase
scene. It was not focus-stealing or over the top, in fact there was just enough of an emphasis to show
that it was a respectful nod to what made Walker so famous.
I had two major issues with the movie, though. The first being the overuse of slow motion in the fight
scenes. Especially the one between Tremaine’s right-hand woman Rayza (Ayisha Issa) and Leno’s ex-
girlfriend, Lola (Catalina Denis). It seemed that every 10-15 seconds they would slow time to focus
on the most asinine thing in the shot, but only for 1-2 seconds and then speed the scene back up. It
seemed like a real quick and easy way to extend the scene and pad the length of the movie.
My other gripe had to do with how quickly the conflicts resolved themselves in the film. First, spoiler
alert. If you do not want to know the resolution of the one of the major plot-points, please skip this
paragraph. All the way up until mere moments before Damien and Leno get access to the bomb to
defuse it, everyone is certain that Tremaine is bad guy, and rightfully so. He is an ex-military, now drug-
lord that essentially monopolized the crime in Brick Mansions. But when he shows one out-of-character
moment of compassion, Lola defends his actions which leads to a quick turnaround of “now we can trust
this guy” among the main characters. It just didn’t make sense in the scheme of things. And that’s just
the tip of the iceberg on this point. But I will leave the rest for the movie.
All-in-all, I liked this movie. It had a feel like a Jet Li movie when he was first trying to break into
American Cinema (a la Romeo Must Die and Cradle 2 Grave). And it might just be the same for David
Belle, who already has a slew of stunt work under his belt. It would be nice to see him get some more
starring things. Would I have paid to watch it in theater? Probably, as I wouldn’t know exactly what
I was in store for. Will I go back and do it now, no. But I can say I will end up picking it up on Blu-ray
when it is released.
one day, and I was intrigued. Brick Mansions is touted as Paul Walker’s last complete movie, may he
rest his in peace. But I am really hoping that it’s not true. Because if it is, I really have to question some
of the filmmakers’ decisions.
Brick Mansions comes from the creative mind of Luc Besson, who happened to also write District B13
which this movie is a remake of. In fact, David Belle, who plays Leno in the movie, played the same role
in District B13. Leno is a man who lives in Brick Mansions, a highly-dilapidated area of Detroit in 2018,
who is trying to thwart the big boss in Brick Mansions, Tremaine (RZA), and keep drugs off the streets.
When Leno steals 20 Kilos of cocaine and destroys it, Tremaine kidnaps his ex-girlfriend to lure him in
and ultimately land him in jail. Damien (Paul Walker) is an undercover cop looking to take down the
organization that killed his father, who was also a cop. He traces it back to Tremaine, and desperately
wants to take him down. When a threat of a bomb going off that could obliterate Brick Mansions,
Damien is asked to infiltrate the city, and he must enlist the help of Leno to pull it off. As Damien and
Leno race against time to disarm the bomb, they realize that they may have misjudged each other, and
the threat at hand.
IMDB credits Belle as the founder of Parkour. I do not know if it is true or not, but the man definitely
makes it seems like it. The fight scenes were excellently choreographed, if not a bit cheesy at times
(Walker and Belle doing mirror image Parkour in perfect unison). It was nice to see the parity between
Damien’s style of getting things done Leno’s style, and the film was definitely not afraid to focus on
strengths. And it wouldn’t be a Paul Walker movie these days if the man didn’t have a driving/chase
scene. It was not focus-stealing or over the top, in fact there was just enough of an emphasis to show
that it was a respectful nod to what made Walker so famous.
I had two major issues with the movie, though. The first being the overuse of slow motion in the fight
scenes. Especially the one between Tremaine’s right-hand woman Rayza (Ayisha Issa) and Leno’s ex-
girlfriend, Lola (Catalina Denis). It seemed that every 10-15 seconds they would slow time to focus
on the most asinine thing in the shot, but only for 1-2 seconds and then speed the scene back up. It
seemed like a real quick and easy way to extend the scene and pad the length of the movie.
My other gripe had to do with how quickly the conflicts resolved themselves in the film. First, spoiler
alert. If you do not want to know the resolution of the one of the major plot-points, please skip this
paragraph. All the way up until mere moments before Damien and Leno get access to the bomb to
defuse it, everyone is certain that Tremaine is bad guy, and rightfully so. He is an ex-military, now drug-
lord that essentially monopolized the crime in Brick Mansions. But when he shows one out-of-character
moment of compassion, Lola defends his actions which leads to a quick turnaround of “now we can trust
this guy” among the main characters. It just didn’t make sense in the scheme of things. And that’s just
the tip of the iceberg on this point. But I will leave the rest for the movie.
All-in-all, I liked this movie. It had a feel like a Jet Li movie when he was first trying to break into
American Cinema (a la Romeo Must Die and Cradle 2 Grave). And it might just be the same for David
Belle, who already has a slew of stunt work under his belt. It would be nice to see him get some more
starring things. Would I have paid to watch it in theater? Probably, as I wouldn’t know exactly what
I was in store for. Will I go back and do it now, no. But I can say I will end up picking it up on Blu-ray
when it is released.
