Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Natalie Reyes - a kick-ass non-white female hero (1 more)
Arnie's drapes
Linda Hamilton - acting didn't work for me (1 more)
Confusing storyline (as a continuation of T2)
Enjoyable Hokum
Natalia Reyes plays young Mexican Dani Ramos. Out of the blue she faces danger and tragedy when a ‘Rev 9’ Terminator (Gabriel Luna) zaps itself back in time to Mexico City to dispose of her. But, as in “Terminator 2: Judgement Day”, a protector is on hand. This time it’s in the ripped form of ‘enhanced’ human Grace (Mackenzie Davis). She’s there to protect Dani and maintain whatever key to the future that she holds.
Dani is assisted by Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), a vigilante Terminator-fighter wanted in all 50 US States for wanton destruction of property. But even this dynamic duo are no match for the unstoppable force of the Rev 9. So they must turn to an old nemesis from Sarah’s past for assistance.
James Cameron is heavily involved with this one. The decision was made to ‘reboot’ the series as if all the dodgy Terminator movies of the intervening years (after #2) had never happened. (That’s not to say that *I* necessarily found them all dodgy. I quite liked “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” for example, with it’s grim and downbeat ending).
Now I went into this flick understanding that premise. So a flashback scene in the first few minutes of the film left me mightily confused. How on earth did this link to the ‘thumbs up’ scene at the end of “Terminator 2”? #baffled.
But if you ignore this issue, the film settles into what I thought was a nice “Logan“-style modus operandi. There’s an exciting chase sequence along a Mexican highway, but it never overwhelmed the ongoing development of character and motive.
Unfortunately, this didn’t last. Overall, the script lacked momentum, showing a general lack of narrative drive. This is the result, I suspect, of the familiar malaise of ‘team-input’. There are a total of SIX writers contributing to the story and/or screenplay. For example, an opportunity to take a poke at Trump’s Mexican wall isn’t taken; neither are scenes in the topically newsworthy detention centre. It’s as if the “better not: we’ll upset people” button was pressed in either the writing room or by the studio.
Trying to make up for this wallowing second reel, the movie – on boarding a military transport plane – goes to extremes of unbelievable action, both in the sky and below the water. That “Logan-esque” start seems a long way away now.
There’s another element of the movie that confused the hell out of me. The ‘Rev 9’ is able to jump out of it’s “skeleton” which could then pursue actions on its own. Given the Terminator gets FLATTENED – skeleton and all – during certain scenes of the film, this makes little sense unless the skeleton is made of the same ‘liquid metal’ as the body. In which case, why not just have liquid metal that can assume multiple different forms and attack the target from all sides? Perhaps that came in with the “Rev 10”!
But it’s not as bad as I’ve made it sound. This is in no way a terrible movie. As a ‘brain at the door’ piece of sci-fi hocum I really quite enjoyed it. The cast in particular is nicely of our time. There’s a Colombian (not Mexican), feisty and successful female lead in the form of the relatively unknown Reyes. And she has two strong female characters in support. Arnie Schwarzenegger has top billing, but his is really a supporting role.
Natalia Reyes I thought was particularly impressive. The girl has real screen presence, and I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Mackenzie Davis is also terrific as the kick-ass cyborg. I particularly liked the way she executed a neat plot device. Grace has a ‘war-machine’ design… she’s designed for incredible bursts of activity over short periods, but then becomes next to useless as her body crashes and needs ‘rebooting’.
I don’t want to be mean, but there’s probably a reason Linda Hamilton hasn’t been in more mainstream movies since T2. Her acting here is adequate at best and didn’t really cut it for me. The script has delivered her a number of humorous lines – including the iconic “I’ll be back’ – but none of them really land in the delivery.
Instead , it’s Arnie who has the best lines in the movie, delivered with dead-pan wit. His “cover” identity – and particularly his chosen profession – deliver some laugh out loud dialogue.
All in all, I found this a big step up on other Terminator films in the series. The director is Tim Miller, he of “Deadpool“. It’s not bloody Shakespeare, but I found it – warts and all – an enjoyable night out at the movies.
For the full graphical review, check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/10/one-manns-movies-film-review-terminator-dark-fate-2019/
Dani is assisted by Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), a vigilante Terminator-fighter wanted in all 50 US States for wanton destruction of property. But even this dynamic duo are no match for the unstoppable force of the Rev 9. So they must turn to an old nemesis from Sarah’s past for assistance.
James Cameron is heavily involved with this one. The decision was made to ‘reboot’ the series as if all the dodgy Terminator movies of the intervening years (after #2) had never happened. (That’s not to say that *I* necessarily found them all dodgy. I quite liked “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” for example, with it’s grim and downbeat ending).
Now I went into this flick understanding that premise. So a flashback scene in the first few minutes of the film left me mightily confused. How on earth did this link to the ‘thumbs up’ scene at the end of “Terminator 2”? #baffled.
But if you ignore this issue, the film settles into what I thought was a nice “Logan“-style modus operandi. There’s an exciting chase sequence along a Mexican highway, but it never overwhelmed the ongoing development of character and motive.
Unfortunately, this didn’t last. Overall, the script lacked momentum, showing a general lack of narrative drive. This is the result, I suspect, of the familiar malaise of ‘team-input’. There are a total of SIX writers contributing to the story and/or screenplay. For example, an opportunity to take a poke at Trump’s Mexican wall isn’t taken; neither are scenes in the topically newsworthy detention centre. It’s as if the “better not: we’ll upset people” button was pressed in either the writing room or by the studio.
Trying to make up for this wallowing second reel, the movie – on boarding a military transport plane – goes to extremes of unbelievable action, both in the sky and below the water. That “Logan-esque” start seems a long way away now.
There’s another element of the movie that confused the hell out of me. The ‘Rev 9’ is able to jump out of it’s “skeleton” which could then pursue actions on its own. Given the Terminator gets FLATTENED – skeleton and all – during certain scenes of the film, this makes little sense unless the skeleton is made of the same ‘liquid metal’ as the body. In which case, why not just have liquid metal that can assume multiple different forms and attack the target from all sides? Perhaps that came in with the “Rev 10”!
But it’s not as bad as I’ve made it sound. This is in no way a terrible movie. As a ‘brain at the door’ piece of sci-fi hocum I really quite enjoyed it. The cast in particular is nicely of our time. There’s a Colombian (not Mexican), feisty and successful female lead in the form of the relatively unknown Reyes. And she has two strong female characters in support. Arnie Schwarzenegger has top billing, but his is really a supporting role.
Natalia Reyes I thought was particularly impressive. The girl has real screen presence, and I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Mackenzie Davis is also terrific as the kick-ass cyborg. I particularly liked the way she executed a neat plot device. Grace has a ‘war-machine’ design… she’s designed for incredible bursts of activity over short periods, but then becomes next to useless as her body crashes and needs ‘rebooting’.
I don’t want to be mean, but there’s probably a reason Linda Hamilton hasn’t been in more mainstream movies since T2. Her acting here is adequate at best and didn’t really cut it for me. The script has delivered her a number of humorous lines – including the iconic “I’ll be back’ – but none of them really land in the delivery.
Instead , it’s Arnie who has the best lines in the movie, delivered with dead-pan wit. His “cover” identity – and particularly his chosen profession – deliver some laugh out loud dialogue.
All in all, I found this a big step up on other Terminator films in the series. The director is Tim Miller, he of “Deadpool“. It’s not bloody Shakespeare, but I found it – warts and all – an enjoyable night out at the movies.
For the full graphical review, check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/10/one-manns-movies-film-review-terminator-dark-fate-2019/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In 1994, a low budget film was created in order to preserve the film rights to one of Marvel Comics popular series The Fantastic 4. Created by comic legend Stan Lee, the comic tells the ongoing tales of four people who were endowed with amazing powers after accidental exposure to an element in space.
The film was never released and has gone on to become a popular bootleg amongst comic fans. The ensuing rights for the film were also sold, and for almost a decade Fox has worked in bringing the comic to the big screen.
After years of languishing, the film finally got on the fast track and under the helm of Director Tim Story and features a dynamic cast headed by some of the biggest emerging superstars in Hollywood.
Ioan Gruffudd stars as Reed Richards, a brilliant yet recently bankrupt scientist who, along with his friend Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis), is visiting famed scientist Victor Von Doom (Julian Mc Mahon), in an effort to get his latest venture funded.
Reed is convinced that an approaching storm in space is the key to unlocking vast amounts of genetic secrets and that the shielding on Doom’s space station allows for safe study of the very rare phenomenon.
Doom agrees to the venture in exchange for 75% of all revenue generated from the findings and that he gets to assign certain people to the mission. Among them are Sue Storm (Jessica Alba), and her pilot brother Johnny (Chris Evans). The fact that Sue is Reed’s ex is a source of tension within the group, as she is obviously still hurt and bitter over Reed’s inability to look at her and life in ways that are not based upon analytical science.
Despite the issues, the crew arrives at the station and the test is going according to plan. That is until an unexpected situation arises, which causes the team to get caught in the storm with the shields lowered, exposing them all to the storm’s radiation.
Back on earth, the crew awakens to find themselves in quarantine and suffering no ill effects from the accident. The failure of the mission is of great concern for Doom. His investors are using this as a reason to pull their support, which in turn is causing his stock to drop rapidly.
In time, Reed, Sue, Johnny, and Ben start to show amazing abilities resulting from their exposure to the storm. Johnny can become a human fireball, Reed can stretch his body to amazing lengths, Sue can become invisible and project force fields, and Ben has become a living wall of rock, capable of great feats of strength.
Since Ben is no longer able to pass as a human, he feels like a freak and is shunned by his wife, causing him much anger and depression. It is due to this that the team becomes noticed by the media who dub them the Fantastic 4 after watching them in action.
The resulting fame causes the team to withdraw, save for Johnny who basks in the glory and attention heaped upon him. It is against this changing dynamic that the team must find a way to restore themselves to their normal state and to discover what is causing their new found abilities.
The Fantastic 4 are not the only ones who changed. Doom is becoming more and more angry and violent as he blames Reed for the failure of his company. Victor also has the ability to hurl deadly bolts of energy from his body which is quickly becoming metallic.
As fans of the comic know, it will not take long for Doom and the Fantastic 4 to face off, paving the way for a final confrontation. While I went in not expecting much from the film, I must say I was surprised. Yes, the film has a thin plot, and fairly basic characters and action, but it is also above all fun.
The dynamic between the characters is enjoyable, as is the humor which accurately captures the tone and feel of the comic. Some purists will take exception with some of the liberties taken, such as Doom being on the trip to space and other variations on his character which are not part of the original comic.
Alba and Evans tend to come off at times as airheads but they stay true to their characters throughout. Gruffudd plays Reed with modesty and charm that works well in the film and shows that he is a star on the rise. Praise should be heaped upon Chiklis and McMahon who could easily have become lost behind their costumes. Theygive very human and compelling performances. Chiklis captures the duality of Grimm as he battles his despair over his physical appearance with his desire to do what is right. McMahon does riveting work as the man pushed over the edge and becomes fueled by a desire for revenge and power. The fury and evil upon his face and in his walk shows him as a man of menace and danger.
I for one would have liked to have seen a bit more action in the film but as it stands, it is not as bad as some of the trailers hinted that it might be. If you do not mind thin plots and characters, you may be able to sit back and enjoy this film for what it is, a simple summer escape. Here is hoping that we will see the “Fantastic 4” up on the big screen as the next franchise series from Marvel.
The film was never released and has gone on to become a popular bootleg amongst comic fans. The ensuing rights for the film were also sold, and for almost a decade Fox has worked in bringing the comic to the big screen.
After years of languishing, the film finally got on the fast track and under the helm of Director Tim Story and features a dynamic cast headed by some of the biggest emerging superstars in Hollywood.
Ioan Gruffudd stars as Reed Richards, a brilliant yet recently bankrupt scientist who, along with his friend Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis), is visiting famed scientist Victor Von Doom (Julian Mc Mahon), in an effort to get his latest venture funded.
Reed is convinced that an approaching storm in space is the key to unlocking vast amounts of genetic secrets and that the shielding on Doom’s space station allows for safe study of the very rare phenomenon.
Doom agrees to the venture in exchange for 75% of all revenue generated from the findings and that he gets to assign certain people to the mission. Among them are Sue Storm (Jessica Alba), and her pilot brother Johnny (Chris Evans). The fact that Sue is Reed’s ex is a source of tension within the group, as she is obviously still hurt and bitter over Reed’s inability to look at her and life in ways that are not based upon analytical science.
Despite the issues, the crew arrives at the station and the test is going according to plan. That is until an unexpected situation arises, which causes the team to get caught in the storm with the shields lowered, exposing them all to the storm’s radiation.
Back on earth, the crew awakens to find themselves in quarantine and suffering no ill effects from the accident. The failure of the mission is of great concern for Doom. His investors are using this as a reason to pull their support, which in turn is causing his stock to drop rapidly.
In time, Reed, Sue, Johnny, and Ben start to show amazing abilities resulting from their exposure to the storm. Johnny can become a human fireball, Reed can stretch his body to amazing lengths, Sue can become invisible and project force fields, and Ben has become a living wall of rock, capable of great feats of strength.
Since Ben is no longer able to pass as a human, he feels like a freak and is shunned by his wife, causing him much anger and depression. It is due to this that the team becomes noticed by the media who dub them the Fantastic 4 after watching them in action.
The resulting fame causes the team to withdraw, save for Johnny who basks in the glory and attention heaped upon him. It is against this changing dynamic that the team must find a way to restore themselves to their normal state and to discover what is causing their new found abilities.
The Fantastic 4 are not the only ones who changed. Doom is becoming more and more angry and violent as he blames Reed for the failure of his company. Victor also has the ability to hurl deadly bolts of energy from his body which is quickly becoming metallic.
As fans of the comic know, it will not take long for Doom and the Fantastic 4 to face off, paving the way for a final confrontation. While I went in not expecting much from the film, I must say I was surprised. Yes, the film has a thin plot, and fairly basic characters and action, but it is also above all fun.
The dynamic between the characters is enjoyable, as is the humor which accurately captures the tone and feel of the comic. Some purists will take exception with some of the liberties taken, such as Doom being on the trip to space and other variations on his character which are not part of the original comic.
Alba and Evans tend to come off at times as airheads but they stay true to their characters throughout. Gruffudd plays Reed with modesty and charm that works well in the film and shows that he is a star on the rise. Praise should be heaped upon Chiklis and McMahon who could easily have become lost behind their costumes. Theygive very human and compelling performances. Chiklis captures the duality of Grimm as he battles his despair over his physical appearance with his desire to do what is right. McMahon does riveting work as the man pushed over the edge and becomes fueled by a desire for revenge and power. The fury and evil upon his face and in his walk shows him as a man of menace and danger.
I for one would have liked to have seen a bit more action in the film but as it stands, it is not as bad as some of the trailers hinted that it might be. If you do not mind thin plots and characters, you may be able to sit back and enjoy this film for what it is, a simple summer escape. Here is hoping that we will see the “Fantastic 4” up on the big screen as the next franchise series from Marvel.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!