Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Greed (2019) in Movies
Jan 29, 2020
On the Greek island of Mykonos, preparations are well underway for the lavish Gladiator themed 60th birthday party of multi-millionaire and 'king of the high-street', Sir Richard 'Greedy' McCreadie (Steve Coogan). A journalist turned biographer (David Mitchell) is on hand to document McCreadie's life story and some of his interviews with various acquaintances and family members combine with present day events to form a mockumentary style movie which gives us a closer look at how he went from ruthless young schoolboy to ruthless self-made millionaire.
It's 5 days until the party. Construction on a huge wooden Colosseum is progressing slowly, and a nearby caged lion is to be involved in a series of gladiator themed games for the event. Although, as McCreadies moody teenage son (Asa Butterworth) snarkily points out, it was actually tigers that featured in the movie Gladiator and not lions. Discussions are also taking place as to where the firework display will be and where Fatboy Slim and Coldplay will be performing, overseen by McCreadie himself, all fake tan and bright white teeth. His first wife (Isla Fisher) arrives with her new partner and everyone is under pressure to be ready in time.
We're taken right back to the beginning and Richards public school years. A rather unpleasant young Richard (Jamie Blackley) is back-chatting his teachers and playing cards with the other students for money. When his mother (Shirley Henderson) is called into the school, there is a heated exchange in the headmasters office and Richard ends up leaving the school. We then follow him out into the big wide world, wheeling and dealing in the fashion business, confident and persistent until he has managed to land himself a small shop and enough stock to start undercutting some of his nearby rivals. It's not long until Richard is heading out to Sri Lanka, meeting up with sweatshop managers in order to play them off against each other for the lowest possible price in order to secure himself a huge profit. As Richard grows up into the version played by Coogan, there continues to be a steady stream of different clothing shops, big ideas, dodgy deals and plenty of mishaps for him to tackle in what are some of the films funnier scenes.
Greed takes a real scatter-gun approach to plots and scenes, which for the most part don't really work. There is a completely pointless and dull subplot involving a reality TV show that's being filmed on and around the beach, with another concerning a group of Syrian refugees who have the cheek to be camped out on the beach where the party is due to take place. We zip back and forth in time, occasionally dipping into a hearing regarding Sir Richard's tax avoidance antics over the years and there's never really enough time, or enough of a decent script, to make any of it very interesting or funny. The character of McCreadie, who is clearly loosely based on Topshop CEO Philip Green, is basically just a variation of Alan Partridge, slightly different voice, some extra swearing and anger thrown in, only less funny. The movie even features Tim "Sidekick Simon" Key from the Partridge shows as an exasperated employee, trying to keep the building of the Colosseum on track with a diminishing workforce. There are plenty of celebrity cameos shoehorned in too and the whole thing is just very hit and miss. But mostly miss.
Greed concludes by showing us some pretty sobering facts and figures. We're informed that the 26 richest men in the world hold more wealth than that of the 3.6 billion poorest combined. We learn just how little the women in countries such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh earn in return for their long days putting together high street clothes, while the biggest names in retail turnover millions in profits each year. And we hear about the plight of the Syrian refugees trying to make their way to Greece. The greed and injustice of it all really hits home, and it does so far more effectively here than during the the rest of the movie.
It's 5 days until the party. Construction on a huge wooden Colosseum is progressing slowly, and a nearby caged lion is to be involved in a series of gladiator themed games for the event. Although, as McCreadies moody teenage son (Asa Butterworth) snarkily points out, it was actually tigers that featured in the movie Gladiator and not lions. Discussions are also taking place as to where the firework display will be and where Fatboy Slim and Coldplay will be performing, overseen by McCreadie himself, all fake tan and bright white teeth. His first wife (Isla Fisher) arrives with her new partner and everyone is under pressure to be ready in time.
We're taken right back to the beginning and Richards public school years. A rather unpleasant young Richard (Jamie Blackley) is back-chatting his teachers and playing cards with the other students for money. When his mother (Shirley Henderson) is called into the school, there is a heated exchange in the headmasters office and Richard ends up leaving the school. We then follow him out into the big wide world, wheeling and dealing in the fashion business, confident and persistent until he has managed to land himself a small shop and enough stock to start undercutting some of his nearby rivals. It's not long until Richard is heading out to Sri Lanka, meeting up with sweatshop managers in order to play them off against each other for the lowest possible price in order to secure himself a huge profit. As Richard grows up into the version played by Coogan, there continues to be a steady stream of different clothing shops, big ideas, dodgy deals and plenty of mishaps for him to tackle in what are some of the films funnier scenes.
Greed takes a real scatter-gun approach to plots and scenes, which for the most part don't really work. There is a completely pointless and dull subplot involving a reality TV show that's being filmed on and around the beach, with another concerning a group of Syrian refugees who have the cheek to be camped out on the beach where the party is due to take place. We zip back and forth in time, occasionally dipping into a hearing regarding Sir Richard's tax avoidance antics over the years and there's never really enough time, or enough of a decent script, to make any of it very interesting or funny. The character of McCreadie, who is clearly loosely based on Topshop CEO Philip Green, is basically just a variation of Alan Partridge, slightly different voice, some extra swearing and anger thrown in, only less funny. The movie even features Tim "Sidekick Simon" Key from the Partridge shows as an exasperated employee, trying to keep the building of the Colosseum on track with a diminishing workforce. There are plenty of celebrity cameos shoehorned in too and the whole thing is just very hit and miss. But mostly miss.
Greed concludes by showing us some pretty sobering facts and figures. We're informed that the 26 richest men in the world hold more wealth than that of the 3.6 billion poorest combined. We learn just how little the women in countries such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh earn in return for their long days putting together high street clothes, while the biggest names in retail turnover millions in profits each year. And we hear about the plight of the Syrian refugees trying to make their way to Greece. The greed and injustice of it all really hits home, and it does so far more effectively here than during the the rest of the movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Come the F*** on Bridget… who’s the Daddy?
The world’s favourite lonely-hearts diarist is back. Bridget (Renée Zellweger) once again starts the film ‘all by herself’, haunted by occasional meetings with ex-flame Mark D’Arcy (Colin Firth) – now married to Camilla (Agni Scott) – and facing the natural discomfort of the early funeral of another friend who has died way too young. And at 43, Bridget’s biological clock is also ticking towards parental midnight.
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
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)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
The story of Valerian is a good one. We open on Mül, a idyllic place of peace and a simple life. But this peace is shattered when fire rains from the sky devastating the entire planet. The last moment of Mül sees the Princess, doomed to die in the explosion, release her energy into the universe, through time and space.
Valerian, sunning himself on his ship, is hit with a sudden vision of the cataclysm on Mül. Unsure about it's meaning he goes back to the task at hand, retrieving a relic from some disreputable people on the black market. The "converter" is the last of it's kind in the universe, it will eat anything and rapidly replicate it, and as such is a very valuable commodity.
The mission is to return the converter to Alpha station. But when they arrive they discover that the station has been infected with something right at its heart. It's spreading, and all those that enter do not come back. When events lead to Valerian being drawn into the infected area, Laureline isn't willing to give up hope, and she battles her way in. Once she's reunited with Valerian they work travel to the centre of the station and discover the shocking truth about how the infection began...
The film is based on Valerian and Laureline, a French sci-fi comic series written by Pierre Christin and illustrated by Jean-Claude Mézières. I have got the first one to read, but as is my tradition, I have yet to do so. The first one is available free on Kindle at the moment if anybody is that way inclined. I expect that it will get a much better reaction in Europe than it seem to have done in the States, which is a bit of a shame. Possibly the way to go would have been with bigger stars, but *shrugs shoulders* it's too late now.
As I said, the story itself is a good one, and while people are nit picking and saying there are plot holes... there aren't if you don't look for them. I have this horrible ability to just watch a film for what it is, if you just go and see something to have some fun you don't notice any of that. It's a horribly nice way to be able to live my life, I enjoy a lot more things that way.
What I'm about to say is going to contradict my overall feeling for the film... I didn't really enjoy Dane DeHaan or Cara Delevingne. I had originally thought that I hadn't seen DeHaan in anything before, but was soon getting recollections of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Scrolling through Delevingne's few years of films I've only seen Suicide Squad, and her acting as a "real person" is quite a small piece in that. While I can't think of anyone who would have perfectly suited either role, I feel like many other actors could have done an equal, or better, performance.
You get a wonderful introduction to what the station is, and has become. And we're treated to the potted history of alien species, several of which would sit quite nicely in the Whoniverse. I'm quite looking forward to reading the graphic novel. I can see stories unfolding in the different sections of the station, and that works. It almost feels like it would have made an amazing TV series, because it is essentially Star Trek with glitzier aliens and ecosystems.
As far as the secondary characters go we're treated to several memorable moments. Including Ethan Hawke as Jolly the Pimp, which is as flamboyant as you'd expect. Clive Owen as Commander Filitt, stern and ruthless, the sort who would stab you in the back (or the front) for his own gain. Sam Spruell as General Okto-Bar, who acted his part incredibly well... I'm honestly surprised I've not seen any of the other things he's been in, but I will be checking them out. Rihanna as Bubble, I'm a little surprised about how much I heard about her being in this considering how short her role is. But the same is true of a few things I've seen recently. We first meet her at Jolly's den of iniquity, where the music video training definitely came in handy.
As a whole the film moves along smoothly, with only a few little bits that seemed like they didn't belong, or could have been cut out. Unlike other films though, these little additions didn't harm the overall product.
Here is where my love for the film takes a steep nose-drive. Imagine crying with joy to resting bitch-face in the space of a few seconds. The 3D was hideous. I can't even think of a nice thing to say about it.
When the scenes were general crowd shots or indoors, everything was fine... although these shots didn't really benefit from the effect. The exterior shots however, in my not so expert opinion, were a terrible idea. I found some of them actually painful to watch, particularly long range shots of Alpha with ships coming in to dock. It was near on impossible to deal with the perspective as there was so much happening. For the last half of the film I took my 3D glasses off every time these shots appeared on screen as my head was rapidly starting to hurt, and I wasn't the only one having trouble.
If it wasn't for the painful exterior shots I honestly would have forgotten I was watching the film in 3D. Unlike other 3D films, you weren't aware that things were coming out of the screen at you. Not once.
I really don't want to be so negative about this film, it was an enjoyable watch (without the optical illusion created by the 3D). I would recommend it to anyone who has a passing interest in sci-fi and adaptations of comics. And I feel like, if nothing else, it might get the graphic novels themselves more circulation outside of Europe.
But please... watch it in 2D.
Valerian, sunning himself on his ship, is hit with a sudden vision of the cataclysm on Mül. Unsure about it's meaning he goes back to the task at hand, retrieving a relic from some disreputable people on the black market. The "converter" is the last of it's kind in the universe, it will eat anything and rapidly replicate it, and as such is a very valuable commodity.
The mission is to return the converter to Alpha station. But when they arrive they discover that the station has been infected with something right at its heart. It's spreading, and all those that enter do not come back. When events lead to Valerian being drawn into the infected area, Laureline isn't willing to give up hope, and she battles her way in. Once she's reunited with Valerian they work travel to the centre of the station and discover the shocking truth about how the infection began...
The film is based on Valerian and Laureline, a French sci-fi comic series written by Pierre Christin and illustrated by Jean-Claude Mézières. I have got the first one to read, but as is my tradition, I have yet to do so. The first one is available free on Kindle at the moment if anybody is that way inclined. I expect that it will get a much better reaction in Europe than it seem to have done in the States, which is a bit of a shame. Possibly the way to go would have been with bigger stars, but *shrugs shoulders* it's too late now.
As I said, the story itself is a good one, and while people are nit picking and saying there are plot holes... there aren't if you don't look for them. I have this horrible ability to just watch a film for what it is, if you just go and see something to have some fun you don't notice any of that. It's a horribly nice way to be able to live my life, I enjoy a lot more things that way.
What I'm about to say is going to contradict my overall feeling for the film... I didn't really enjoy Dane DeHaan or Cara Delevingne. I had originally thought that I hadn't seen DeHaan in anything before, but was soon getting recollections of The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Scrolling through Delevingne's few years of films I've only seen Suicide Squad, and her acting as a "real person" is quite a small piece in that. While I can't think of anyone who would have perfectly suited either role, I feel like many other actors could have done an equal, or better, performance.
You get a wonderful introduction to what the station is, and has become. And we're treated to the potted history of alien species, several of which would sit quite nicely in the Whoniverse. I'm quite looking forward to reading the graphic novel. I can see stories unfolding in the different sections of the station, and that works. It almost feels like it would have made an amazing TV series, because it is essentially Star Trek with glitzier aliens and ecosystems.
As far as the secondary characters go we're treated to several memorable moments. Including Ethan Hawke as Jolly the Pimp, which is as flamboyant as you'd expect. Clive Owen as Commander Filitt, stern and ruthless, the sort who would stab you in the back (or the front) for his own gain. Sam Spruell as General Okto-Bar, who acted his part incredibly well... I'm honestly surprised I've not seen any of the other things he's been in, but I will be checking them out. Rihanna as Bubble, I'm a little surprised about how much I heard about her being in this considering how short her role is. But the same is true of a few things I've seen recently. We first meet her at Jolly's den of iniquity, where the music video training definitely came in handy.
As a whole the film moves along smoothly, with only a few little bits that seemed like they didn't belong, or could have been cut out. Unlike other films though, these little additions didn't harm the overall product.
Here is where my love for the film takes a steep nose-drive. Imagine crying with joy to resting bitch-face in the space of a few seconds. The 3D was hideous. I can't even think of a nice thing to say about it.
When the scenes were general crowd shots or indoors, everything was fine... although these shots didn't really benefit from the effect. The exterior shots however, in my not so expert opinion, were a terrible idea. I found some of them actually painful to watch, particularly long range shots of Alpha with ships coming in to dock. It was near on impossible to deal with the perspective as there was so much happening. For the last half of the film I took my 3D glasses off every time these shots appeared on screen as my head was rapidly starting to hurt, and I wasn't the only one having trouble.
If it wasn't for the painful exterior shots I honestly would have forgotten I was watching the film in 3D. Unlike other 3D films, you weren't aware that things were coming out of the screen at you. Not once.
I really don't want to be so negative about this film, it was an enjoyable watch (without the optical illusion created by the 3D). I would recommend it to anyone who has a passing interest in sci-fi and adaptations of comics. And I feel like, if nothing else, it might get the graphic novels themselves more circulation outside of Europe.
But please... watch it in 2D.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Avengers (2012) in Movies
May 9, 2019
Some assembly required
There's a lot about this movie I love (it used to be one of my favorite films to rewatch when I was a teenager), one thing that really stood out to me about watching this again for the first time in awhile, is how much Whedon understands the language of comics.
Whenever people bring that aspect up, they usually talk about the splash panel inspired sequences (the long take through the Battle of New York), but nobody tends to talk about the choices he makes with how he and Seamus McGarvey decide to shoot the smaller scale scenes like they were regular panels.
Take Loki's entrance for example; as the laser begins to open the portal, we cut above, seeing how big the room is and how long the laser is, all in a wide, beautiful shot, taken from an angel to capture the intensity of the villain's entrance, and then that's followed up with a panel inspired close up on Loki's eyes as he breaks into a grin. Or the shot of Natasha being integrated from the prospective of the mirror in the room, and we see various different treasures as it pushes away from it.
Or probably the best example of this, is Steve's introduction; repeatedly working himself up with every punch, flashing back to the events in his life that make him feel the most intense, before punching it straight off its hook, only for him to grab another one of several he has lying there.
It's little touches like this that are sprinkled throughout, making you feel like you're watching a comic book in motion without having to go full on "Scott Pilgrim", "Into The Spider-Verse", "Speed Racer", or even "Batman: The Movie", along with capturing the lavish and striking lighting and colors found within some of the best artists for them.
Plus, while Whedon's writing is known for his sense of humor (for better and worse, especially when it comes to it's impact on the rest of these films post this one), I don't think enough of us take into account how much that humor is there to service the characters, not just the viewers.
Both this and his work with Drew Goddard on "Cabin in the Woods" showcase this perfectly. When Marty in "Cabin" asks if anyone else thinks something weird is going on when Curt contradict himself by saying they should split up, he isn't just saying that for the sake of a gag, it's Whedon and Goddard's way of hinting that he knows more than the others, and establishing that he's immune from these tricks being played on them.
When Steve and Tony are arguing about who's stronger and Steve keeps saying "put on the suit!", once shit hits the fan, he says it once again, but in a way that's far more urgent and fearful, not just being there for the sake of a funny payoff, but as progression for the next series of events that need to play out.
And, man....
There's just so many great moments. Not just the action or the characters working off of each other, but little moments, like the Old Man standing up for Earth to Loki, Steve giving Fury ten bucks after seeing the Helicarrier in action, Bruce mentioning the time he figured he had enough and how he couldn't end it himself, complete with the fear trembling in his voice and facial expression, Loki saying "I'm listening" as Thor was taken away from him, or his monologue to Natasha, the entire New York battle centering around them both trying to keep the army at bay and save as many by standards as possible, just too many to name.
It's one of the most memorable and entertaining blockbusters of this decade and while it doesn't feel as special seeing all of these people in the same movie anymore, it still has them at their best and manages to do it so effortlessly. Like it's one thing that this movie exists, but the fact that it worked is something that'll never not be amazing.
What else can I say, really? It's "The Avengers". You've likely seen it, memed about it, quoted it, referenced it, it doesn't matter, it's been here for nearly ten years now and it's impact is still felt and mentioned. As well as something that's super easy to put on and rewatch, either for some lazy day entertainment, or to revisit during the lead up to their next big adventure.....
Whenever people bring that aspect up, they usually talk about the splash panel inspired sequences (the long take through the Battle of New York), but nobody tends to talk about the choices he makes with how he and Seamus McGarvey decide to shoot the smaller scale scenes like they were regular panels.
Take Loki's entrance for example; as the laser begins to open the portal, we cut above, seeing how big the room is and how long the laser is, all in a wide, beautiful shot, taken from an angel to capture the intensity of the villain's entrance, and then that's followed up with a panel inspired close up on Loki's eyes as he breaks into a grin. Or the shot of Natasha being integrated from the prospective of the mirror in the room, and we see various different treasures as it pushes away from it.
Or probably the best example of this, is Steve's introduction; repeatedly working himself up with every punch, flashing back to the events in his life that make him feel the most intense, before punching it straight off its hook, only for him to grab another one of several he has lying there.
It's little touches like this that are sprinkled throughout, making you feel like you're watching a comic book in motion without having to go full on "Scott Pilgrim", "Into The Spider-Verse", "Speed Racer", or even "Batman: The Movie", along with capturing the lavish and striking lighting and colors found within some of the best artists for them.
Plus, while Whedon's writing is known for his sense of humor (for better and worse, especially when it comes to it's impact on the rest of these films post this one), I don't think enough of us take into account how much that humor is there to service the characters, not just the viewers.
Both this and his work with Drew Goddard on "Cabin in the Woods" showcase this perfectly. When Marty in "Cabin" asks if anyone else thinks something weird is going on when Curt contradict himself by saying they should split up, he isn't just saying that for the sake of a gag, it's Whedon and Goddard's way of hinting that he knows more than the others, and establishing that he's immune from these tricks being played on them.
When Steve and Tony are arguing about who's stronger and Steve keeps saying "put on the suit!", once shit hits the fan, he says it once again, but in a way that's far more urgent and fearful, not just being there for the sake of a funny payoff, but as progression for the next series of events that need to play out.
And, man....
There's just so many great moments. Not just the action or the characters working off of each other, but little moments, like the Old Man standing up for Earth to Loki, Steve giving Fury ten bucks after seeing the Helicarrier in action, Bruce mentioning the time he figured he had enough and how he couldn't end it himself, complete with the fear trembling in his voice and facial expression, Loki saying "I'm listening" as Thor was taken away from him, or his monologue to Natasha, the entire New York battle centering around them both trying to keep the army at bay and save as many by standards as possible, just too many to name.
It's one of the most memorable and entertaining blockbusters of this decade and while it doesn't feel as special seeing all of these people in the same movie anymore, it still has them at their best and manages to do it so effortlessly. Like it's one thing that this movie exists, but the fact that it worked is something that'll never not be amazing.
What else can I say, really? It's "The Avengers". You've likely seen it, memed about it, quoted it, referenced it, it doesn't matter, it's been here for nearly ten years now and it's impact is still felt and mentioned. As well as something that's super easy to put on and rewatch, either for some lazy day entertainment, or to revisit during the lead up to their next big adventure.....
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Okja (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Film that turned me vegetarian
Netflix has been hitting it out of the park with their original movies and TV series recently. Stranger Things, The Sinner, and Gerald’s Game have all been recent Netflix releases, with a caliber to beat some of the most seasoned of television broadcasters and filmmakers. One of the main films that stood out to me was Joon-ho Bong’s Okja – a heartfelt tale of a ‘superpig’ and her family.
Okja follows a young girl called Mija and her mission to save her best friend, Okja, from being kidnapped by a multi-national company. As much as this is a magical and funny tale of friendship, it is also a heartbreaking satire for corporate greed and the mistreatment of animals in the food industry.
Mija is trying to save Okja from Lucy Mirando (Tilda Swinton) – the CEO of the Mirando Corporation, who wants to create a ‘superpig’ to fuel her latest food venture. This movie really highlights how we, as humans, see animals as less than us, when actually they are our friends.
The ending of this film is especially poignant. Not to reveal any spoilers, but I haven’t cried that hard at a film since Marley & Me. It puts you in the position of these animals, innocent but not naive, and seeing things from their perspective really made me consider my actions in a different light.
Before I went to university, I wasn’t that interested in vegetarianism. I had tried it a few times, forgot I was a vegetarian, and then given up almost immediately. When I moved to uni and one of my flat mates was a long-time veggie, it intrigued me.
My interest was cemented after watching Okja. This story of friendship between man and beast made me realise that animals, as much as people may not like to think about it, can feel and think and be in pain. Whilst watching this, my heart ached for these imaginary creatures, that much that I made a big decision.
I decided to try to be vegetarian. For once in my life, I was going to genuinely try. It took me a while, and of course, I have lapsed at some points in these few months since watching the film. It’s only recently that I have genuinely been sticking to a mainly vegetarian diet, and I feel so much better, both morally and physically, in myself.
There’s no denying the health benefits of vegetarianism. It lowers your cholesterol, you tend to lose weight, and you generally have quite a balanced diet. However, the idea that I could be fighting against the mistreatment of animals just by changing my diet a bit, was reason enough for me.
By no means am I the perfect vegetarian. I still eat meat sometimes, if I want to, or if I don’t fancy any of the (usually awful) vegetarian offerings at a restaurant. I am just trying my hardest to live a 90% vegetarian lifestyle.
Some may say that this is a bit of a drastic decision to make off of the back of a film that isn’t real. This is the power of good storytelling. It can make you feel things, say things, change things. It’s a powerful skill to master.
By no means am I telling you that watching Okja will make you vegetarian immediately. It’s just so heart warming and also devastating at the same time, that I couldn’t ignore what it was telling me.
The friendship between Mija and Okja is beautiful. It’s fun, it’s hilarious, it’s special. They have a bond that even the threat of death cannot break, and Mija will not let go of Okja until she has her back.
Overall, this movie is an absolute triumph. Director/writer Joon-ho Bong creates a script that’s almost lyrical in its approach, so fluid and well strung together that there are no seams, no breaks in the approach, no cracks in the well-polished veneer. He creates a story that breaks and heals, it takes the watcher on a journey of both the mind and the heart. It’s art.
This film’s aim is not to make you vegetarian. It’s not to make you feel bad about your food choices or your love of meat. It’s a story of love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/13/okja-review-the-film-that-turned-me-veggie/
Okja follows a young girl called Mija and her mission to save her best friend, Okja, from being kidnapped by a multi-national company. As much as this is a magical and funny tale of friendship, it is also a heartbreaking satire for corporate greed and the mistreatment of animals in the food industry.
Mija is trying to save Okja from Lucy Mirando (Tilda Swinton) – the CEO of the Mirando Corporation, who wants to create a ‘superpig’ to fuel her latest food venture. This movie really highlights how we, as humans, see animals as less than us, when actually they are our friends.
The ending of this film is especially poignant. Not to reveal any spoilers, but I haven’t cried that hard at a film since Marley & Me. It puts you in the position of these animals, innocent but not naive, and seeing things from their perspective really made me consider my actions in a different light.
Before I went to university, I wasn’t that interested in vegetarianism. I had tried it a few times, forgot I was a vegetarian, and then given up almost immediately. When I moved to uni and one of my flat mates was a long-time veggie, it intrigued me.
My interest was cemented after watching Okja. This story of friendship between man and beast made me realise that animals, as much as people may not like to think about it, can feel and think and be in pain. Whilst watching this, my heart ached for these imaginary creatures, that much that I made a big decision.
I decided to try to be vegetarian. For once in my life, I was going to genuinely try. It took me a while, and of course, I have lapsed at some points in these few months since watching the film. It’s only recently that I have genuinely been sticking to a mainly vegetarian diet, and I feel so much better, both morally and physically, in myself.
There’s no denying the health benefits of vegetarianism. It lowers your cholesterol, you tend to lose weight, and you generally have quite a balanced diet. However, the idea that I could be fighting against the mistreatment of animals just by changing my diet a bit, was reason enough for me.
By no means am I the perfect vegetarian. I still eat meat sometimes, if I want to, or if I don’t fancy any of the (usually awful) vegetarian offerings at a restaurant. I am just trying my hardest to live a 90% vegetarian lifestyle.
Some may say that this is a bit of a drastic decision to make off of the back of a film that isn’t real. This is the power of good storytelling. It can make you feel things, say things, change things. It’s a powerful skill to master.
By no means am I telling you that watching Okja will make you vegetarian immediately. It’s just so heart warming and also devastating at the same time, that I couldn’t ignore what it was telling me.
The friendship between Mija and Okja is beautiful. It’s fun, it’s hilarious, it’s special. They have a bond that even the threat of death cannot break, and Mija will not let go of Okja until she has her back.
Overall, this movie is an absolute triumph. Director/writer Joon-ho Bong creates a script that’s almost lyrical in its approach, so fluid and well strung together that there are no seams, no breaks in the approach, no cracks in the well-polished veneer. He creates a story that breaks and heals, it takes the watcher on a journey of both the mind and the heart. It’s art.
This film’s aim is not to make you vegetarian. It’s not to make you feel bad about your food choices or your love of meat. It’s a story of love.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/13/okja-review-the-film-that-turned-me-veggie/
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/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 11, 2021
After the MCU rounded up with Endgame I was having Marvel fatigue, I had my issues with the Spider-man movie, and I haven't been thrilled by the TV series that we've been getting on Disney+. I had managed to avoid most of the Black Widow coverage until getting back to the cinema, but even seeing the trailer on the big screen didn't get me pumped for it.
Natasha Romanoff is on the run... rewind the MCU a bit... Black Widow is on the run after the incident with the Sokovia accords. While she's on the move (and somehow invisible to detection despite being an Avenger... on the run) her past catches up with her, and after an awkward family reunion, they have to work together to rectify the mistakes of the past.
So how did this next outing in the MCU go down?
I wasn't mad about, or at, it. It nicely aligned itself with its position in the universe in a way that didn't feel too forced, and finally getting the history that the previous films alluded to... well, it was about time. I was surprised how well it managed to condense her story down and still manage to give enough to help it flow. I'm not sure it's the story I was expecting, or necessarily hoped for, but it was good. (I had assumed that we would be getting more about the inside of the Red Room, and not the results of it on the older recruits.)
Johansson gave a solid performance as you'd expect, she's perfected the role over the years and this performance sat well within the character she'd already developed. But what about the other cast members?
MVP for me was Florence Pugh as Yelena. A little frustrating for me to say, but I said it. The sisterly bond with Natasha was there in spades and she managed to grasp the emotion of the family moments so well. And her comedic timing with the sharp script was magnificent. I was delighted every time I saw her on the screen.
Playing Natasha and Yelena's parents are David Harbour and Rachel Weisz. An amusing pairing, with a very opposites attract kind of vibe. Alexie (Harbour) seems to change a lot from the historical points, and he also gets the comical treatment too, but in a more over the top way than Yelena. He had his moments, though I'm not sure it all landed. Weisz plays Melina, a straight-laced scientist/spy. Together they make an interesting team, but I'm not convinced that Melina would have stood up without Alexie.
My only problem with the case? Sometimes I found it a little jarring hearing those accents. Sure, it's nice to have a big recognisable cast, but listening to those accents from people you know really well from other things was continually off-putting.
I was thankful when the story started to pick up a bit. The beginning felt like a bit of a slog, and I was starting to lose hope. Looking back on it, 2 hours 13 minutes is a lot for what happened. It could easily have tightened up a bit and come in at around 2 hours. (And on the other end of the film, though completely separate to the run time... why put the credit scene right at the end?!)
The benefit of this film when it came to effects is that there was very little out of the ordinary that needed to be done. That meant that everything looked good on screen. I honestly didn't spot anything that stuck out like a sore thumb... or a Thanos henchman... that seems more appropriate given the film's universe. The studio have got CGI down to a fine art at this point.
As I said above, Black Widow gave a nice story to the character, and I can't help but think that they could have given her this before now, and not kicked her out into the sidelines behind the male superheroes. (Well, apart from Hawkeye, poor bugger.) I'm not bothered about seeing this again, which is odd for me as I will usually try and see a Marvel in 3D too. Even odder, because it's basically all that's on at my cinema right now. But I don't feel like I need to go back to try and spot things to link to other films. It feels very inconsequential at this point and, while I enjoyed it, a bit of a letdown.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/black-widow-movie-review.html
Natasha Romanoff is on the run... rewind the MCU a bit... Black Widow is on the run after the incident with the Sokovia accords. While she's on the move (and somehow invisible to detection despite being an Avenger... on the run) her past catches up with her, and after an awkward family reunion, they have to work together to rectify the mistakes of the past.
So how did this next outing in the MCU go down?
I wasn't mad about, or at, it. It nicely aligned itself with its position in the universe in a way that didn't feel too forced, and finally getting the history that the previous films alluded to... well, it was about time. I was surprised how well it managed to condense her story down and still manage to give enough to help it flow. I'm not sure it's the story I was expecting, or necessarily hoped for, but it was good. (I had assumed that we would be getting more about the inside of the Red Room, and not the results of it on the older recruits.)
Johansson gave a solid performance as you'd expect, she's perfected the role over the years and this performance sat well within the character she'd already developed. But what about the other cast members?
MVP for me was Florence Pugh as Yelena. A little frustrating for me to say, but I said it. The sisterly bond with Natasha was there in spades and she managed to grasp the emotion of the family moments so well. And her comedic timing with the sharp script was magnificent. I was delighted every time I saw her on the screen.
Playing Natasha and Yelena's parents are David Harbour and Rachel Weisz. An amusing pairing, with a very opposites attract kind of vibe. Alexie (Harbour) seems to change a lot from the historical points, and he also gets the comical treatment too, but in a more over the top way than Yelena. He had his moments, though I'm not sure it all landed. Weisz plays Melina, a straight-laced scientist/spy. Together they make an interesting team, but I'm not convinced that Melina would have stood up without Alexie.
My only problem with the case? Sometimes I found it a little jarring hearing those accents. Sure, it's nice to have a big recognisable cast, but listening to those accents from people you know really well from other things was continually off-putting.
I was thankful when the story started to pick up a bit. The beginning felt like a bit of a slog, and I was starting to lose hope. Looking back on it, 2 hours 13 minutes is a lot for what happened. It could easily have tightened up a bit and come in at around 2 hours. (And on the other end of the film, though completely separate to the run time... why put the credit scene right at the end?!)
The benefit of this film when it came to effects is that there was very little out of the ordinary that needed to be done. That meant that everything looked good on screen. I honestly didn't spot anything that stuck out like a sore thumb... or a Thanos henchman... that seems more appropriate given the film's universe. The studio have got CGI down to a fine art at this point.
As I said above, Black Widow gave a nice story to the character, and I can't help but think that they could have given her this before now, and not kicked her out into the sidelines behind the male superheroes. (Well, apart from Hawkeye, poor bugger.) I'm not bothered about seeing this again, which is odd for me as I will usually try and see a Marvel in 3D too. Even odder, because it's basically all that's on at my cinema right now. But I don't feel like I need to go back to try and spot things to link to other films. It feels very inconsequential at this point and, while I enjoyed it, a bit of a letdown.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/black-widow-movie-review.html