Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Wolfwalkers (2020) in Movies
Oct 11, 2020
Coming into this I wasn't sure what to expect, an animated Apple TV film... hmm.
Robyn comes to Ireland with her father, e's been given the job of ridding the area of a pack of wolves that are venturing closer and closer to the town. Keen to hunt just like her father, Robyn sneaks out of the safety of their walled town and into the forest after him. Once there she comes face to face with a wolf, but the encounter isn't what she expected. When she eventually meets Mebh, a wild spirit who lives out in the woods, she discovers what the legend of the wolkwalkers truly means and must find a way to save the pack, and her new friend, from the wrath of the Lord Protector and her father.
The phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" hasn't felt quite so accurate as it does now. When the film starts it has the delicacy of an illustrated picture book (with a hint of Gravity Falls), the colour palette is muted and the strokes look haphazard while being in exactly the right place... and I haven't liked this style of illustration... ever... in the 19 years I was in the book industry. It feels old fashioned (yes, I know that fits with its story) and I immediately felt myself grumble at the fact I was about to sit through a whole film of it.
Wolfwalkers' story is a nice mix of folk story and themes of family and friendship. We follow Robyn as she tries desperately to break free of societies rules and those of her overprotective father, and the overall effect is a surprisingly motivational film about protecting people and doing the right thing.
The only names I recognised off the cast list were Sean Bean and Simon McBurney, and both had the right tone for this film... though Bean ever so slightly like he wasn't always acting to the best of his abilities... but that's not really noticeable when you get swept up in everything.
Our two young ladies in the cast, Honor Kneafsey as Robyn and Eva Whittaker as Mebh, were a delightful match, and when the pair were together on screen they have an amazing chemistry together.
But I want to talk about my favourite thing, and that is very specifically, Mebh. Casting, animation, script, she gets the best of everything that was thrown at this film. Her style is so amazingly accurate for the tale and her story and you can see it in every scene. Her wild characteristics, her playful nature, had all been carefully added to every moment we see her. Whittaker's enthusiastic and emotional vocals bring it all to life in such a wonderful way. Mebh is a delightful creation and full of comedic moments that really made me smile... and that hair... brilliant.
Wolfwalkers' animation (by Cartoon Saloon) might not have been to my taste in the beginning but, with the story and the amazing characters, I soon started to forget about my initial peeves. The design of everything really helps to explain the surroundings, the light and dark of the forest when we first encounter it and then evolves as we progress. The visuals when the townies start encroaching are sad but have a stunning reality to them and in the run-up to the end of the film the way they portray those events is a massive change to the style and makes for a harrowing watch. They've also come up with an ingenious way of showing the wolves and the magic that they're regarded within the story, it's an impressive visual.
All of these wonderful things were topped off with a beautiful soundtrack. Everything fits perfectly, particularly the song "Running With The Wolves" by Aurora, which gave me chills to hear.
Starting this film with such a negative feeling I really didn't think I'd be able to turn it around, but as I watched on and got pulled deeper into the tale and the characters, well, you can tell by my rating that my mind was quickly changed. Wolfwalkers was a beautiful and emotional ride that I would not hesitate to recommend to anyone.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/wolfwalkers-movie-review.html
Robyn comes to Ireland with her father, e's been given the job of ridding the area of a pack of wolves that are venturing closer and closer to the town. Keen to hunt just like her father, Robyn sneaks out of the safety of their walled town and into the forest after him. Once there she comes face to face with a wolf, but the encounter isn't what she expected. When she eventually meets Mebh, a wild spirit who lives out in the woods, she discovers what the legend of the wolkwalkers truly means and must find a way to save the pack, and her new friend, from the wrath of the Lord Protector and her father.
The phrase "don't judge a book by its cover" hasn't felt quite so accurate as it does now. When the film starts it has the delicacy of an illustrated picture book (with a hint of Gravity Falls), the colour palette is muted and the strokes look haphazard while being in exactly the right place... and I haven't liked this style of illustration... ever... in the 19 years I was in the book industry. It feels old fashioned (yes, I know that fits with its story) and I immediately felt myself grumble at the fact I was about to sit through a whole film of it.
Wolfwalkers' story is a nice mix of folk story and themes of family and friendship. We follow Robyn as she tries desperately to break free of societies rules and those of her overprotective father, and the overall effect is a surprisingly motivational film about protecting people and doing the right thing.
The only names I recognised off the cast list were Sean Bean and Simon McBurney, and both had the right tone for this film... though Bean ever so slightly like he wasn't always acting to the best of his abilities... but that's not really noticeable when you get swept up in everything.
Our two young ladies in the cast, Honor Kneafsey as Robyn and Eva Whittaker as Mebh, were a delightful match, and when the pair were together on screen they have an amazing chemistry together.
But I want to talk about my favourite thing, and that is very specifically, Mebh. Casting, animation, script, she gets the best of everything that was thrown at this film. Her style is so amazingly accurate for the tale and her story and you can see it in every scene. Her wild characteristics, her playful nature, had all been carefully added to every moment we see her. Whittaker's enthusiastic and emotional vocals bring it all to life in such a wonderful way. Mebh is a delightful creation and full of comedic moments that really made me smile... and that hair... brilliant.
Wolfwalkers' animation (by Cartoon Saloon) might not have been to my taste in the beginning but, with the story and the amazing characters, I soon started to forget about my initial peeves. The design of everything really helps to explain the surroundings, the light and dark of the forest when we first encounter it and then evolves as we progress. The visuals when the townies start encroaching are sad but have a stunning reality to them and in the run-up to the end of the film the way they portray those events is a massive change to the style and makes for a harrowing watch. They've also come up with an ingenious way of showing the wolves and the magic that they're regarded within the story, it's an impressive visual.
All of these wonderful things were topped off with a beautiful soundtrack. Everything fits perfectly, particularly the song "Running With The Wolves" by Aurora, which gave me chills to hear.
Starting this film with such a negative feeling I really didn't think I'd be able to turn it around, but as I watched on and got pulled deeper into the tale and the characters, well, you can tell by my rating that my mind was quickly changed. Wolfwalkers was a beautiful and emotional ride that I would not hesitate to recommend to anyone.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/wolfwalkers-movie-review.html
Piano with Songs
Music and Games
5.0
Rate It
App
Piano Free has the largest song catalog of any piano on the app store. With over 1,500 songs to...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Jun 10, 2022
Time For This To Go Extinct
Like it was millions of years ago, the time of the dinosaurs is coming to a close. With JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION, we end the Jurassic World trilogy (after having the Jurassic Park trilogy) and it is high time we do so.
A retro-film (as I’ve been calling these nostalgia-flicks that bring back old actors/characters from previously beloved properties), JURARSSIC WORLD DOMINION is entertaining enough - but the creative brains behind this franchise is just running out of clever ways to put the same group of characters in danger of being eaten by a dinosaur.
Written by Emily Carmichael based on a story by Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow and Directed by Trevorrow (returning to helm this franchise after Directing the first Jurassic World flick, but not the 2nd), JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION follows our favorite bickering couple, Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen (Chris Pratt) and their pseudo-pet Velociraptor, Blue as they, once again, go into the Jurassic World fighting a money-grubbing Corporate Billionaire who wants the genetic technology for his own, greedy purposes and not what might be for the good of all - the Earth, the Humans and the Dinosaurs. Along the way good ol’ Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Ian Malcolm (the always quirky Jeff Goldblum) are, somehow, shoe-horned into this story.
And that, ultimately, is the issue with Dominion, the script feels like an amalgam of characters that needed to be serviced and set-pieces that needed to be shown, but the overall story-line and character development (not that there is much here) is shoved to the side, so at the end the emotional connection to this film - and it’s characters - is negligible.
What little character interest there is here is based solely on the charisma of the actors and they are…good enough. Pratt, of course, is able to carry the center of this flick as Owen Grady - but he doesn’t seem to be occupying the center square with the twinkle in his eye that he had in the first Jurassic World film. Bryce Dallas Howard is plucky enough as Clare, but this actress has been gaining traction lately as a “go-to” Director (like her father, Ron Howard) and that is probably a better career trajectory for her. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are “game enough” in what they are asked to do, but they both look just a bit tired of running around in front of green screen dinosaurs. Only Jeff Goldblum shines as Ian Malcolm and that’s because Trevorrow, wisely, decides to let Goldblum be Goldblum - odd and quirky.
Of the other actors in this film, DeWanda Wise (FATHERHOOD) really shines as a pilot who helps out the gang. On the other hand, Dichen Lachman (SEVERENCE) is completely wasted as a “top-notch” henchman that is pretty inept. However, it was good to see Omar Sy (who was in the first JURASSIC WORLD movie and then became a star thanks to his work on the French TV show LUPINE - which is terrific, by the way) back in the fold as it was good to see Campbell Scott back up on the big screen as the villain of the piece - a role that he brings an interesting twist to but, ultimately, the role leads to nowhere.
And that’s the issue with this film, the characterizations lead to nowhere, for Trevorrow focuses most of his attention on the battle scenes and the scares - and while not all of them are exciting and unusual, I did find myself jumping in my seat on more than one occasion and there is one scene with Bryce Dallas Howard escaping a dino in a swamp that was pretty intense.
Go see JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION if you’ve seen the other 5 - you’ve already invested this much time, you might as well complete the series. But, this film really brings nothing new and is, ultimately, less than what one hopes for in this type of film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A retro-film (as I’ve been calling these nostalgia-flicks that bring back old actors/characters from previously beloved properties), JURARSSIC WORLD DOMINION is entertaining enough - but the creative brains behind this franchise is just running out of clever ways to put the same group of characters in danger of being eaten by a dinosaur.
Written by Emily Carmichael based on a story by Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow and Directed by Trevorrow (returning to helm this franchise after Directing the first Jurassic World flick, but not the 2nd), JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION follows our favorite bickering couple, Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen (Chris Pratt) and their pseudo-pet Velociraptor, Blue as they, once again, go into the Jurassic World fighting a money-grubbing Corporate Billionaire who wants the genetic technology for his own, greedy purposes and not what might be for the good of all - the Earth, the Humans and the Dinosaurs. Along the way good ol’ Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Ian Malcolm (the always quirky Jeff Goldblum) are, somehow, shoe-horned into this story.
And that, ultimately, is the issue with Dominion, the script feels like an amalgam of characters that needed to be serviced and set-pieces that needed to be shown, but the overall story-line and character development (not that there is much here) is shoved to the side, so at the end the emotional connection to this film - and it’s characters - is negligible.
What little character interest there is here is based solely on the charisma of the actors and they are…good enough. Pratt, of course, is able to carry the center of this flick as Owen Grady - but he doesn’t seem to be occupying the center square with the twinkle in his eye that he had in the first Jurassic World film. Bryce Dallas Howard is plucky enough as Clare, but this actress has been gaining traction lately as a “go-to” Director (like her father, Ron Howard) and that is probably a better career trajectory for her. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are “game enough” in what they are asked to do, but they both look just a bit tired of running around in front of green screen dinosaurs. Only Jeff Goldblum shines as Ian Malcolm and that’s because Trevorrow, wisely, decides to let Goldblum be Goldblum - odd and quirky.
Of the other actors in this film, DeWanda Wise (FATHERHOOD) really shines as a pilot who helps out the gang. On the other hand, Dichen Lachman (SEVERENCE) is completely wasted as a “top-notch” henchman that is pretty inept. However, it was good to see Omar Sy (who was in the first JURASSIC WORLD movie and then became a star thanks to his work on the French TV show LUPINE - which is terrific, by the way) back in the fold as it was good to see Campbell Scott back up on the big screen as the villain of the piece - a role that he brings an interesting twist to but, ultimately, the role leads to nowhere.
And that’s the issue with this film, the characterizations lead to nowhere, for Trevorrow focuses most of his attention on the battle scenes and the scares - and while not all of them are exciting and unusual, I did find myself jumping in my seat on more than one occasion and there is one scene with Bryce Dallas Howard escaping a dino in a swamp that was pretty intense.
Go see JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION if you’ve seen the other 5 - you’ve already invested this much time, you might as well complete the series. But, this film really brings nothing new and is, ultimately, less than what one hopes for in this type of film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
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."
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
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 23, 2020
'Tis the season for Christmas cliche and Lost At Christmas certainly fits the bill... but stay tuned for a "pleasant" surprise?
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Death to 2020 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
The annual event of Charlie Brooker’s Yearly Wipe is the one piece of satire I have been sure not to miss over the years. But 2020 has been a bit different, and finding himself in lockdown like everyone else, Brooker re-imagines the format into a full on talking-heads mockumentary that does away with himself as host in favour of a cross Atlantic vibe and a narration from the bass tones of Laurence Fishburne, no less.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.