Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Top Gun: Maverick (2022) in Movies
May 19, 2022
Back in 1987, Tom Cruise and Paramount released “Top Gun” and in doing so created a cultural phenomenon that launched Cruise into Superstardom and became an enduring classic.
Now after decades away and delays due to the pandemic, Cruise has returned to the franchise with “Top Gun: Maverick” and has crafted the rare feat, of a sequel that is not only better than the original but also gives audiences an edge of the seat summer event film when it is needed the most.
Cruise stars as Captain Pete Mitchell who after thirty years is not only haunted by his past but unable to shed his insubordinate and impulsive ways which have kept him from reaching the rank of Admiral and have moved him from one assignment to another.
After his latest action confirms his incredible aviation skills but infuriates the upper brass in the process, Mitchell is out of options as he is unwilling to retire, unable to be promoted, and out of posting options. He is tasked by an old friend with enough clout to watch out for him to return to the Top Gun program as an instructor. Mitchell is hesitant as his last attempt as an instructor did not last long and he believes he is better suited to fly versus teaching.
It is learned that an enemy faction is about to open a Uranium enrichment facility in violation of established law that would threaten the region, and Mitchell is tasked with training a team of Top Gun graduates in three weeks who can make what appears to be a near-impossible assault on the facility to destroy it before it becomes a threat.
While the assembled pilots represent a brash and talented group, Mitchell must contend with the ghosts of his past as one of the members Bradley ‘Rooster’ Bradshaw (Miles Teller), is the son of his deceased friend Goose and has a very fractured relationship with Bradshaw over their shared past.
With pressure on him from Admiral Simpson (Jon Hamm), Mitchell must somehow find a way to train the group in a small amount of time for what is considered by many to be an impossible mission due to the terrain, defenses, and location of their target.
The film is an edge-of-the-seat adrenaline rush that grabs ahold of you from the start and never lets up. From the opening music to the intense aerial sequences, the audience was hooked as gasps and cheers erupted frequently as the characters and action clearly connected with the audience.
While the visual sequences are nothing short of spectacular, the film is a character-based story and there is a depth to Mitchell and many of the cast that goes much deeper than one would normally see in a summer action film.
Jennifer Connelly offers a great counter-point to Mitchell as a person from his past that has known him through several key moments of his career and helps him endure the turbulent emotions that he has.
From the solid characters and story to the rousing final segments of the movie, “Top Gun: Maverick” returns the Summer Event film in grand style and exceeded my expectations and the original in every way.
Now after decades away and delays due to the pandemic, Cruise has returned to the franchise with “Top Gun: Maverick” and has crafted the rare feat, of a sequel that is not only better than the original but also gives audiences an edge of the seat summer event film when it is needed the most.
Cruise stars as Captain Pete Mitchell who after thirty years is not only haunted by his past but unable to shed his insubordinate and impulsive ways which have kept him from reaching the rank of Admiral and have moved him from one assignment to another.
After his latest action confirms his incredible aviation skills but infuriates the upper brass in the process, Mitchell is out of options as he is unwilling to retire, unable to be promoted, and out of posting options. He is tasked by an old friend with enough clout to watch out for him to return to the Top Gun program as an instructor. Mitchell is hesitant as his last attempt as an instructor did not last long and he believes he is better suited to fly versus teaching.
It is learned that an enemy faction is about to open a Uranium enrichment facility in violation of established law that would threaten the region, and Mitchell is tasked with training a team of Top Gun graduates in three weeks who can make what appears to be a near-impossible assault on the facility to destroy it before it becomes a threat.
While the assembled pilots represent a brash and talented group, Mitchell must contend with the ghosts of his past as one of the members Bradley ‘Rooster’ Bradshaw (Miles Teller), is the son of his deceased friend Goose and has a very fractured relationship with Bradshaw over their shared past.
With pressure on him from Admiral Simpson (Jon Hamm), Mitchell must somehow find a way to train the group in a small amount of time for what is considered by many to be an impossible mission due to the terrain, defenses, and location of their target.
The film is an edge-of-the-seat adrenaline rush that grabs ahold of you from the start and never lets up. From the opening music to the intense aerial sequences, the audience was hooked as gasps and cheers erupted frequently as the characters and action clearly connected with the audience.
While the visual sequences are nothing short of spectacular, the film is a character-based story and there is a depth to Mitchell and many of the cast that goes much deeper than one would normally see in a summer action film.
Jennifer Connelly offers a great counter-point to Mitchell as a person from his past that has known him through several key moments of his career and helps him endure the turbulent emotions that he has.
From the solid characters and story to the rousing final segments of the movie, “Top Gun: Maverick” returns the Summer Event film in grand style and exceeded my expectations and the original in every way.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wild Rose (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Three Chords and the Truth.
BAFTA named Jessie Buckley as one of their “Rising Stars” for 2019, and here she proves why.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl on the Train (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You won’t uncork a bottle of Malbec again without thinking of this film…
“The Girl on a Train” is the film adaptation of the best-seller by Paula Hawkins, transported from the London suburbs to New York’s Hastings-on-Hudson.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
It’s actually rather a sordid story encompassing as it does alcoholism, murder, marital strife, deceit, sexual frustration, an historical tragedy and lashings and lashings of violence. Emily Blunt (“Sicario”, “Edge of Tomorrow”) plays Rachel, a divorcee with an alcohol problem who escapes into an obsessive fantasy each day as she passes her former neighbourhood on her commute into the city. Ex-husband Tom (Justin Theroux, “Zoolander 2”) lives in her old house with his second wife Anna (Rebecca “MI:5” Ferguson) and new baby Evie. But her real fantasy rests with cheerleader-style young neighbour Megan (Haley Bennett) who is actually locked in a frustratingly child-free marriage (frustrating for him at least) with the controlling and unpredictable Scott (Luke Evans, “The Hobbit”). A sixth party in this complex network is Megan’s psychiatrist Dr Kamal Abdic (Édgar Ramírez, “Joy”).
In pure Hitchcockian style Megan witnesses mere glimpses of events from her twice-daily train and from these pieces together stories that suitably feed her psychosis. When ‘shit gets real’ and a key character goes missing, Megan surfaces her suspicions and obsessions to the police investigation (led by Detective Riley, the ever-excellent Allison Janney from “The West Wing”) and promptly makes herself suspect number one.
Readers of the book will already be aware of the twists and turns of the story, so will watch the film from a different perspective than I did. (Despite my best intentions I never managed to read the book first).
First up, you would have to say that Emily Blunt’s performance is outstanding in an extremely challenging acting role. Every nuance of shame, confusion, grief, fear, doubt and anger is beautifully enacted: it would not be a surprise to see her gain her first Oscar nomination for this. All the other lead roles are also delivered with great professionalism, with Haley Bennett (a busy month for her, with “The Magnificent Seven” also out) being impressive and Rebecca Ferguson, one of my favourite current actresses, delivering another measured and delicate performance.
Girl on a Train, The
Rebecca Ferguson as Anna – “there were three of us in this marriage so it was a bit crowded”
The supporting roles are also effective, with Darren Goldstein as the somewhat creepy “man in the suit” and “Friends” star Lisa Kudrow popping up in an effective and pivotal role. The Screen Guild Awards have an excellent category for an Ensemble Cast in a Motion Picture, and it feels appropriate to nominate this cast for that award.
So it’s a blockbuster book with a rollercoaster story and a stellar cast, so what could go wrong? Well, something for sure. This is a case in point where I suspect it is easier to slowly peel back Rachel’s lost memory with pages and imagination than it is with dodgy fuzzy images on a big screen. Although the film comes in at only 112 minutes, the pacing in places is too slow (the screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson takes its time) and director Tate Taylor (“The Help”) is no Hitchcock, or indeed a David Fincher (since the film has strong similarities to last year’s “Gone Girl”: when the action does happen it lacks style, with the violence being on the brutal side and leaving little to the imagination.
It’s by no means a bad film, and worth seeing for the acting performances alone. But it’s not a film I think that will trouble my top 10 for the year.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Dark Tower (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Adapting Stephen King stories for the screen has long been a difficult problem for Hollywood. For every “Misery” and “The Shawshank Redemption”, there are many others such as “The Mangler”, “Cell”, “and Graveyard Shift” and many more where things did not go as planned.
The big issue is that King often creates detailed characters with complex backstories and puts then in fully developed worlds that despite their supernatural nature, often are easy for readers to relate to.
Also as any reader of his books knows, King is not one to spare the paper and his books can be very lengthy offerings. This is an issue for Hollywood as they are forced to condense a 400-800 page plus story in many cases to fewer than two hours of screen time. The solution has been to try television movies such as “The Langoliers”, “The Tommyknockers”, “The Stand”, and “It”. The problem with this format is that while spreading the story over multiple nights allows more time for the story, they gore and adult content which is often the core of the story has to be greatly watered down.
Which brings us to “The Dark Tower”, an adaptation of King’s largest offering as the series covers seven books and a novella, not to mention a Prequel comic and more. The series rolled out from 1982-2004 with King often saying that he might never finish the series. Fortunately for fans he released three books from 2003-2004 and was able to declare the story told.
The story tells of a world like ours, but different that has “moved on”. It is a dying world where Roland (Idris Elba), is pursuing a wizard named Walter (Matthew McConaughey), who is responsible for laying waste the world and killing all that come into Roland’s life. The books follow his unrelenting chase of The Man in Black over countless years and how he has become a cold and driven individual who thinks nothing of using people to get his revenge.
Roland is the last of the “Gunslingers”, a Knight like group who protected the world and who used guns that were rare in their world to keep the peace. Roland is highly skilled and unlike his now dead companions, is impervious to the magic of Walter which has allowed him to remain alive and continue his quest.
The Man in Black is fixated on destroying the Dark Tower, which protects the many worlds in the universe from the outside evils that look to destroy it. Along with a young boy from Earth named Jake (Tom Taylor), Roland must find a way to save the universe and exact his revenge.
The film keeps the conflict between Roland and The Man in Black but greatly condenses the story as it includes references to things in the first two books but omits much of the backstory and plot of the novels to tell what I would call a story that was inspired by, but not based on the books.
This is at the core the biggest issue with the film. I have read the books and while I wanted an adaptation that was closer to them, I did find myself enjoying the film more than I expected to. The leads were very good and even though they had a very watered down script to work with, they did a good job and the finale does have some nice visuals and action to it.
People I know who have read the books have naturally been very disappointed with the film but those who have not read the books have mentioned that they enjoyed the film and accepted it as a fun bit of escapist adventure.
There has been talk of a television series that would focus more on the third book onward which hopefully would include how Roland gained new followers from our world who were trained to be future Gunslingers. That remains to be seen as the success of the film will likely hold the key. I hope we do get to see it as there are countless stories and characters yet to tell in this universe and I think fans deserve to see them as King wrote them.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/03/the-dark-tower/
The big issue is that King often creates detailed characters with complex backstories and puts then in fully developed worlds that despite their supernatural nature, often are easy for readers to relate to.
Also as any reader of his books knows, King is not one to spare the paper and his books can be very lengthy offerings. This is an issue for Hollywood as they are forced to condense a 400-800 page plus story in many cases to fewer than two hours of screen time. The solution has been to try television movies such as “The Langoliers”, “The Tommyknockers”, “The Stand”, and “It”. The problem with this format is that while spreading the story over multiple nights allows more time for the story, they gore and adult content which is often the core of the story has to be greatly watered down.
Which brings us to “The Dark Tower”, an adaptation of King’s largest offering as the series covers seven books and a novella, not to mention a Prequel comic and more. The series rolled out from 1982-2004 with King often saying that he might never finish the series. Fortunately for fans he released three books from 2003-2004 and was able to declare the story told.
The story tells of a world like ours, but different that has “moved on”. It is a dying world where Roland (Idris Elba), is pursuing a wizard named Walter (Matthew McConaughey), who is responsible for laying waste the world and killing all that come into Roland’s life. The books follow his unrelenting chase of The Man in Black over countless years and how he has become a cold and driven individual who thinks nothing of using people to get his revenge.
Roland is the last of the “Gunslingers”, a Knight like group who protected the world and who used guns that were rare in their world to keep the peace. Roland is highly skilled and unlike his now dead companions, is impervious to the magic of Walter which has allowed him to remain alive and continue his quest.
The Man in Black is fixated on destroying the Dark Tower, which protects the many worlds in the universe from the outside evils that look to destroy it. Along with a young boy from Earth named Jake (Tom Taylor), Roland must find a way to save the universe and exact his revenge.
The film keeps the conflict between Roland and The Man in Black but greatly condenses the story as it includes references to things in the first two books but omits much of the backstory and plot of the novels to tell what I would call a story that was inspired by, but not based on the books.
This is at the core the biggest issue with the film. I have read the books and while I wanted an adaptation that was closer to them, I did find myself enjoying the film more than I expected to. The leads were very good and even though they had a very watered down script to work with, they did a good job and the finale does have some nice visuals and action to it.
People I know who have read the books have naturally been very disappointed with the film but those who have not read the books have mentioned that they enjoyed the film and accepted it as a fun bit of escapist adventure.
There has been talk of a television series that would focus more on the third book onward which hopefully would include how Roland gained new followers from our world who were trained to be future Gunslingers. That remains to be seen as the success of the film will likely hold the key. I hope we do get to see it as there are countless stories and characters yet to tell in this universe and I think fans deserve to see them as King wrote them.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/03/the-dark-tower/
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 Sully (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
No, not “Monsters Inc 3”.
Chesley Sullenberger was just a very experienced US Airways pilot starting an everyday job flying from LaGuardia airport in New York to Charlotte when fate stepped in. Following an extensive bird strike and the loss of both engines, ‘Sully’ achieved worldwide fame by landing his aircraft and all 151 passengers and crew safely on the Hudson river. Sully is immediately acclaimed by the public as a hero; US Airways, and their insurers, however, are not necessarily as impressed given that their plane has got rather soggy when the flight data suggests it might have actually been able to make it to a landing at a number of nearby airports. So a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) inquiry is called, where a decision against Sully could see him facing the fastest fall from grace since Icarus.
This film is obviously based on this real-life ‘Miracle on the Hudson’ and to a large extent the recreation of the crash…. sorry… “forced water landing” is both vivid and gripping. The film is certainly unlikely to make the regular list of in-flight movies for nervous passengers, but it does serve as a good training film for all of those regular airline passengers who don’t “put down their reading materials” to listen to the aircraft safety announcement.
Director Clint Eastwood has delivered a highly watchable action sequence showcasing the undisputed acting talents of Tom Hanks (playing Sully) and his Aaron Eckhard (“Olympus Has Fallen”, playing the co-pilot Jeff Skiles). This makes for a great 45 minute film. The problem is the other 51 minutes.
Where the film works well – aside from the actual recreation itself – is in representing the post-traumatic stress experienced by Sully, with his insomnia and regular flashbacks of ‘what might have happened’ (anyone still strongly affected by 9/11 will struggle with these scenes). The final NTSB hearing scenes are also well-done and suitably gripping: particularly for viewers outside of the UK where we wouldn’t have heard the outcome of the affair once the news cycle had moved on from the ‘gee-whizz’ headline event.
Where the film aquaplanes somewhat is in the padding achieved through multiple (MULTIPLE!) scenes of New Yorkers back-slapping Sully. Some of this is needed to establish the pedestal that Sully is set upon: the bar scene, for example, is well done. But all the rest of the references become just plain tiresome.
There is also a back-story focused on Sully’s financial problems and rather scratchy marriage (as portrayed) to Lorraine (Laura Linney). Linney is normally a highly-watchable actress, but here her character is just so irritating that the mood of the film plummets every time she reappears on screen.
The key problem that screenwriter Todd Komarnicki (“Elf”!!) had here is the obvious one: that as a real-event (based on Sullenberger’s own book “Highest Duty”) he would have had more scope to build tension if the flight had lasted more than 208 seconds! We end up with little visibility into the back-stories of the passengers. We get to see a father and two grown-up sons who – as fate would have it – just manage to catch the doomed plane: and we end up caring what happens to them. But this approach could have perhaps been usefully extended to feature more of the passenger back-stories (without getting the full “Airport” soap treatment).
Clint Eastwood is also clearly an All-American patriot, and in common with some of his other films he can’t help himself from putting up rather soupy statements about the self-sacrifice of New Yorkers (“the best of New York came together”): when actually the rescue teams did what they were paid to do and Ferry captains did what you or I would do if we stumbled on the scene! These sentiments might go down well in the States: in the cynical UK they tend to generate snorts of irritation.
What IS nice are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) during the closing credits where the real Sully, Skiles, cabin-crew and passengers appear together in a celebration of continued life against all the odds. And just so you are aware, this is done as two separate segments during the titles, so if you don’t want to be one of those people standing in the aisles with your coat half on, then wait for the second one!
A curate’s egg of a film: great in places, but overall not as well executed as it could have been.
This film is obviously based on this real-life ‘Miracle on the Hudson’ and to a large extent the recreation of the crash…. sorry… “forced water landing” is both vivid and gripping. The film is certainly unlikely to make the regular list of in-flight movies for nervous passengers, but it does serve as a good training film for all of those regular airline passengers who don’t “put down their reading materials” to listen to the aircraft safety announcement.
Director Clint Eastwood has delivered a highly watchable action sequence showcasing the undisputed acting talents of Tom Hanks (playing Sully) and his Aaron Eckhard (“Olympus Has Fallen”, playing the co-pilot Jeff Skiles). This makes for a great 45 minute film. The problem is the other 51 minutes.
Where the film works well – aside from the actual recreation itself – is in representing the post-traumatic stress experienced by Sully, with his insomnia and regular flashbacks of ‘what might have happened’ (anyone still strongly affected by 9/11 will struggle with these scenes). The final NTSB hearing scenes are also well-done and suitably gripping: particularly for viewers outside of the UK where we wouldn’t have heard the outcome of the affair once the news cycle had moved on from the ‘gee-whizz’ headline event.
Where the film aquaplanes somewhat is in the padding achieved through multiple (MULTIPLE!) scenes of New Yorkers back-slapping Sully. Some of this is needed to establish the pedestal that Sully is set upon: the bar scene, for example, is well done. But all the rest of the references become just plain tiresome.
There is also a back-story focused on Sully’s financial problems and rather scratchy marriage (as portrayed) to Lorraine (Laura Linney). Linney is normally a highly-watchable actress, but here her character is just so irritating that the mood of the film plummets every time she reappears on screen.
The key problem that screenwriter Todd Komarnicki (“Elf”!!) had here is the obvious one: that as a real-event (based on Sullenberger’s own book “Highest Duty”) he would have had more scope to build tension if the flight had lasted more than 208 seconds! We end up with little visibility into the back-stories of the passengers. We get to see a father and two grown-up sons who – as fate would have it – just manage to catch the doomed plane: and we end up caring what happens to them. But this approach could have perhaps been usefully extended to feature more of the passenger back-stories (without getting the full “Airport” soap treatment).
Clint Eastwood is also clearly an All-American patriot, and in common with some of his other films he can’t help himself from putting up rather soupy statements about the self-sacrifice of New Yorkers (“the best of New York came together”): when actually the rescue teams did what they were paid to do and Ferry captains did what you or I would do if we stumbled on the scene! These sentiments might go down well in the States: in the cynical UK they tend to generate snorts of irritation.
What IS nice are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) during the closing credits where the real Sully, Skiles, cabin-crew and passengers appear together in a celebration of continued life against all the odds. And just so you are aware, this is done as two separate segments during the titles, so if you don’t want to be one of those people standing in the aisles with your coat half on, then wait for the second one!
A curate’s egg of a film: great in places, but overall not as well executed as it could have been.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Good popcorn nonsense.
“Remember who we are. The Shaw family. We never, never, never give up.”
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Skyscraper (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
As sponsored by Duck Tape.
I have a fundamental problem with this film. And it’s not that it’s an irrevocably cheesy and derivative action movie, since you could automatically assume that by watching the ridiculously over-the-top trailer. But more on that later.
Dwayne Johnson plays Will Sawyer, a security expert left one-legged after a disastrous FBI operation 10 years previously. Now Will has moved with his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell, “Scream”, “House of Cards”) and two young kids into “The Pearl” in Hong Kong, the tallest building – by several Shards – in the world, designed and constructed by tech billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han, “Independence Day: Resurgence“). As the first residents, the family live in isolated splendour on a high floor. But in true “Die Hard” fashion, baddies, led by a the unconvincingly evil “Scandinavian” Kores Botha (Roland Møller, “The Commuter“), are intent on controlling and then destroying the high-rise. As fire races up towards his family, Will has to use all his physical capabilities to re-enter the building and save his family.
Now, there are implausible leaps in films and then there are IMPLAUSIBLE leaps!
As a story it’s well-crafted but completely bonkers. There are more ludicrous plot holes than muscles on Johnson’s well-crafted body. Why exactly does Botha needs to implement such a ridiculously convoluted plot to secure his goal? Why wasn’t the lift drop delayed by two minutes? Why don’t critical access controls have two-factor authentication? And – most perplexing of all – why don’t the “heaven cameras” show the building below?!!
Big, bigger, biggest!
Both “Die Hard” and “The Towering Inferno”, of which this is an unsubtle blend, could both be similarly accused of lacking credibility but were fun rides. This is not in the same league as either, but has its moments of vertiginous excitement. Johnson is suitably energetic in the muscular lead but lacks acting nuance. I was trying to analyse why this is, and I came down to his eyeballs! In conversation with Campbell, his eyes dart from left to right and back again, as if an army of ants are running over her face. He needs to take lessons on fixed stares from Michael Caine!
Duck tape! Anyone knows if you put two bits together you never get them apart again!
As the title of this review implies, Duck Tape also plays a key role: not for Johnson the fancy blue light/red light gloves of Tom Cruise! It also derives one of the best of a series of quotable lines from the film: “If it can’t be fixed with Duck Tape, you’re not using enough Duck Tape!”.
Neve Campbell is actually the best actor in the film, proving to be suitably kick-ass in her own right. It’s a shame she’s been rather tagged as ‘the screaming girl from “Scream”… no, not Barrymore, the other one’: she deserves more feature film opportunities like this one.
The best acting in the movie from Neve Campbell, here with a Noah Cottrell and a supremely confident performance by McKenna Roberts.
Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Central Intelligence“, “Dodgeball”) keeps the action to a tight 102 minutes, but needs to keep more control over his Hong Kong extras: there is far too much ‘twenty-second-pointing’ and over exuberant jumping up and down going on that draws the attention away from the principals. This is particularly the case in the Die-Hard rip-off of an ending (“HOOOLLLLLLYYYYYY!!!”).
As a popcorn piece of escapist nonsense, it’s serviceable and delivers as a B-grade movie… it’s not good enough to be a “Die Hard” classic, and not bad enough to be a “so bad it’s good” disaster like “Into the Storm“.
Taiwanese actress Hannah Quinlivan as Xia, the ruthless hit-girl.
You’ll note that I haven’t rubbished the film per se. So why then do I hold a negative view of the flick, and indeed somewhat regret going to see it?
One word – – Grenfell.
I knew the plot on going in, but didn’t equate just how damaging the mental effects of that dreadful night of 14th June 2017 were on my soul. Traumatic incendiary scenes together with some insensitive dialogue (“We’re going to turn that tower into a chimney”) broke through the wall of “entertainment” and left just a sick feeling in my stomach. And my wife had exactly the same feelings as we debriefed afterwards. This is a film that might have benefited from sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before release.
If you can separate in your mind the movie story from the shocking reality of one of life’s most unpleasant recent twists, then good for you: go and enjoy the movie. But I wasn’t so lucky so on a purely personal basis this is one occasion when I will give a film two ratings.
Dwayne Johnson plays Will Sawyer, a security expert left one-legged after a disastrous FBI operation 10 years previously. Now Will has moved with his wife Sarah (Neve Campbell, “Scream”, “House of Cards”) and two young kids into “The Pearl” in Hong Kong, the tallest building – by several Shards – in the world, designed and constructed by tech billionaire Zhao Long Ji (Chin Han, “Independence Day: Resurgence“). As the first residents, the family live in isolated splendour on a high floor. But in true “Die Hard” fashion, baddies, led by a the unconvincingly evil “Scandinavian” Kores Botha (Roland Møller, “The Commuter“), are intent on controlling and then destroying the high-rise. As fire races up towards his family, Will has to use all his physical capabilities to re-enter the building and save his family.
Now, there are implausible leaps in films and then there are IMPLAUSIBLE leaps!
As a story it’s well-crafted but completely bonkers. There are more ludicrous plot holes than muscles on Johnson’s well-crafted body. Why exactly does Botha needs to implement such a ridiculously convoluted plot to secure his goal? Why wasn’t the lift drop delayed by two minutes? Why don’t critical access controls have two-factor authentication? And – most perplexing of all – why don’t the “heaven cameras” show the building below?!!
Big, bigger, biggest!
Both “Die Hard” and “The Towering Inferno”, of which this is an unsubtle blend, could both be similarly accused of lacking credibility but were fun rides. This is not in the same league as either, but has its moments of vertiginous excitement. Johnson is suitably energetic in the muscular lead but lacks acting nuance. I was trying to analyse why this is, and I came down to his eyeballs! In conversation with Campbell, his eyes dart from left to right and back again, as if an army of ants are running over her face. He needs to take lessons on fixed stares from Michael Caine!
Duck tape! Anyone knows if you put two bits together you never get them apart again!
As the title of this review implies, Duck Tape also plays a key role: not for Johnson the fancy blue light/red light gloves of Tom Cruise! It also derives one of the best of a series of quotable lines from the film: “If it can’t be fixed with Duck Tape, you’re not using enough Duck Tape!”.
Neve Campbell is actually the best actor in the film, proving to be suitably kick-ass in her own right. It’s a shame she’s been rather tagged as ‘the screaming girl from “Scream”… no, not Barrymore, the other one’: she deserves more feature film opportunities like this one.
The best acting in the movie from Neve Campbell, here with a Noah Cottrell and a supremely confident performance by McKenna Roberts.
Rawson Marshall Thurber (“Central Intelligence“, “Dodgeball”) keeps the action to a tight 102 minutes, but needs to keep more control over his Hong Kong extras: there is far too much ‘twenty-second-pointing’ and over exuberant jumping up and down going on that draws the attention away from the principals. This is particularly the case in the Die-Hard rip-off of an ending (“HOOOLLLLLLYYYYYY!!!”).
As a popcorn piece of escapist nonsense, it’s serviceable and delivers as a B-grade movie… it’s not good enough to be a “Die Hard” classic, and not bad enough to be a “so bad it’s good” disaster like “Into the Storm“.
Taiwanese actress Hannah Quinlivan as Xia, the ruthless hit-girl.
You’ll note that I haven’t rubbished the film per se. So why then do I hold a negative view of the flick, and indeed somewhat regret going to see it?
One word – – Grenfell.
I knew the plot on going in, but didn’t equate just how damaging the mental effects of that dreadful night of 14th June 2017 were on my soul. Traumatic incendiary scenes together with some insensitive dialogue (“We’re going to turn that tower into a chimney”) broke through the wall of “entertainment” and left just a sick feeling in my stomach. And my wife had exactly the same feelings as we debriefed afterwards. This is a film that might have benefited from sitting on the shelf for a couple of years before release.
If you can separate in your mind the movie story from the shocking reality of one of life’s most unpleasant recent twists, then good for you: go and enjoy the movie. But I wasn’t so lucky so on a purely personal basis this is one occasion when I will give a film two ratings.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Dec 20, 2019
Young ensemble cast actually ensembling! (1 more)
Adam Driver on great form
After 42 years - does it leave with a bang or a whimper?
This review will be spoiler-free.
And so we come to the grand conclusion of George Lucas's nine-film vision, and someone can at last put the multi-limbed behemoth in a coffin and nail down the lid. It's certainly been a bumpy ride for this latest trilogy under Disney's stewardship, with rabidly negative fan-boys getting very hot under the collar about 'their baby' being despoiled by the evil empire!
We left the end of the last film with the Rebellion in tatters, reduced to a tiny fleet of ships. (It was truly fortunate that our key players were not on any of the lost ships wasn't it?) Rey (Daisy Ridley) is progressing her Jedi-training under the guidance of a new teacher. But the presence of Kylo-Ren (Adam Driver) is forever there, and their long-distance "psycho-chats" are becoming ever more 'substantial' as the bond between them grows.
But a dark presence from the past has returned, and both are drawn to it in different ways. A showdown between the forces of good and evil is inevitable.
The pace of the film is frenetic and totally exhausting. The first 30 minutes hardly pause for a breath as we zap around from location to location. Where the film really worked better for me was in the quieter and more reflective moments. Kylo Ren is in many of these moments: one, where he visits a very dark place, is well done; and one, where he receives a special visitor, is an interlude that is surprisingly effective. Adam Driver really is in excellent form here; he's never been my favourite actor in the world, but here truly impresses.
One of the problems of the first two films in the trilogy is that it sent all the young leads off in multiple different directions. The result was that there was very little of the interplay of the first films (between Han, Luke and Leia) that made them so memorable. Here that issue is rectified and Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Finn (John Boyega) develop a close onscreen bond with much resultant banter. Ridley's Rey also gets thrown into the mix, with the result that a group hug feels at last normal and right. It's bizarre, but you suddenly realise what was missing here when - FOR THE FIRST TIME - two of the characters get introduced to each other!
A welcome inclusion is that of the late Carrie Fisher as Leia. It's actually extraordinary that they had enough unused footage to be able to weave in a full role for the character into the story. It never feels forced and there were only a few 'hugs' where I found myself thinking "I bet that's not her".
C3PO (Anthony Daniels) also gets much more screen time and has some really nice and comical scenes in here. And a new uni-wheeled robot (voiced by director J.J. Abrams) adds to both the comic potential (and the available Disney merchandise!).
One of the new characters on show is the physically impressive Naomi Ackie as the horse (or something!) riding Jannah. But she's given little to do in the plot.
Elsewhere, there are a whole bunch of famous faces cropping up. Watching the end credit roll is an "OH! That was who that was" revelation in some cases. I won't list them here, since it is delicious to go in blind and have the surprise of seeing them. But some are famous actors from screen and TV, and one is an Abrams' favourite from a past TV glory. The biggest cheer though was reserved for a certain X-wing fighter near the end of the film. A blink-and-you'll-miss-him moment, it was a white-haired appearance to treasure.
What the film does very well (or very badly if you read some reviews) is hark back to the glories of the earlier films, and particularly Episodes IV to VI. Many places are revisited or scenes re-enacted until the place is just SOGGY with nostalgia (to use an old Tom Lehrer line). Although greatly contrived, I enjoyed these scenes immensely.
Making maximum use of the opportunity, John Williams bashes out theme after theme from most of the nine films. The soundtrack really is a "John Williams Greatest Hits" collection. Williams also actually gets a cameo as well - apparently as an eye-patch wearing bar-tender in the Nepalese-like town, though I must admit I missed it. (I've seen comment online that this is his first on-screen appearance: actually not true... he was conducting the orchestra in the "bird-lady's concert hall" in "Home Alone 2").
There are also a huge number of similarities I saw in certain scenes with other cinematic releases outside of the Star Wars universe:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - in two particular scenes;
"Dunkirk" - but done properly!
"Dora and the Lost City of Gold" - it doesn't make any physics sense here either!
"Power Rangers" - just because of one of the characters - you'll know the one
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" - but to say more would be a spoiler!
And there are probably others I've forgotten!
One of my key issues with "The Last Jedi" was the way in which it invented mad-cap tasks, objects and people that had to be completed/found for the plot to be moved forwards. A massive and pointless diversion to a casino planet, for example, was made just to get into a secure area of an imperial vessel: something in this film they 'just do'!
This movie also suffers to a degree from the disease of 'McGuffinitis'. Where's the beacon? There's a dagger that must be found; Where's the interpreter?; etc. It's all very formulaic. But at least in this case, there is a certain logical flow that follows within the plot.
The LP soundtrack of "Star Wars" got me into a lifelong love of film music. One of the last tracks on the soundtrack of the first film was called "The Last Battle". Well, THAT wasn't true! There have been so many space battles since then that we've all lost count. But we all knew this would build to a doozy of a finale, and the film doesn't disappoint. There is utter mayhem in the skies: WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE HENCHMEN'S FAMILIES?
It all drives to a satisfying ending for me and feels like a good closure to the saga. Is it perfect? No, not at all. It really sets itself with too much to do, and then tries to do it all within the available running time. The film will - and has by looking at the volume of IMDB 1* ratings - upset a lot of the fan-boys. But, you know what? Stuff 'em! The film should be judged on how it makes YOU feel as a standalone piece of entertainment, rather than as a part of some sort of pseudo-religious cult. And I personally think Abrams did a pretty decent job here of trying to please most of the people most of the time.
(For the full graphical review, please visit One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-2019/ )
And so we come to the grand conclusion of George Lucas's nine-film vision, and someone can at last put the multi-limbed behemoth in a coffin and nail down the lid. It's certainly been a bumpy ride for this latest trilogy under Disney's stewardship, with rabidly negative fan-boys getting very hot under the collar about 'their baby' being despoiled by the evil empire!
We left the end of the last film with the Rebellion in tatters, reduced to a tiny fleet of ships. (It was truly fortunate that our key players were not on any of the lost ships wasn't it?) Rey (Daisy Ridley) is progressing her Jedi-training under the guidance of a new teacher. But the presence of Kylo-Ren (Adam Driver) is forever there, and their long-distance "psycho-chats" are becoming ever more 'substantial' as the bond between them grows.
But a dark presence from the past has returned, and both are drawn to it in different ways. A showdown between the forces of good and evil is inevitable.
The pace of the film is frenetic and totally exhausting. The first 30 minutes hardly pause for a breath as we zap around from location to location. Where the film really worked better for me was in the quieter and more reflective moments. Kylo Ren is in many of these moments: one, where he visits a very dark place, is well done; and one, where he receives a special visitor, is an interlude that is surprisingly effective. Adam Driver really is in excellent form here; he's never been my favourite actor in the world, but here truly impresses.
One of the problems of the first two films in the trilogy is that it sent all the young leads off in multiple different directions. The result was that there was very little of the interplay of the first films (between Han, Luke and Leia) that made them so memorable. Here that issue is rectified and Poe (Oscar Isaac) and Finn (John Boyega) develop a close onscreen bond with much resultant banter. Ridley's Rey also gets thrown into the mix, with the result that a group hug feels at last normal and right. It's bizarre, but you suddenly realise what was missing here when - FOR THE FIRST TIME - two of the characters get introduced to each other!
A welcome inclusion is that of the late Carrie Fisher as Leia. It's actually extraordinary that they had enough unused footage to be able to weave in a full role for the character into the story. It never feels forced and there were only a few 'hugs' where I found myself thinking "I bet that's not her".
C3PO (Anthony Daniels) also gets much more screen time and has some really nice and comical scenes in here. And a new uni-wheeled robot (voiced by director J.J. Abrams) adds to both the comic potential (and the available Disney merchandise!).
One of the new characters on show is the physically impressive Naomi Ackie as the horse (or something!) riding Jannah. But she's given little to do in the plot.
Elsewhere, there are a whole bunch of famous faces cropping up. Watching the end credit roll is an "OH! That was who that was" revelation in some cases. I won't list them here, since it is delicious to go in blind and have the surprise of seeing them. But some are famous actors from screen and TV, and one is an Abrams' favourite from a past TV glory. The biggest cheer though was reserved for a certain X-wing fighter near the end of the film. A blink-and-you'll-miss-him moment, it was a white-haired appearance to treasure.
What the film does very well (or very badly if you read some reviews) is hark back to the glories of the earlier films, and particularly Episodes IV to VI. Many places are revisited or scenes re-enacted until the place is just SOGGY with nostalgia (to use an old Tom Lehrer line). Although greatly contrived, I enjoyed these scenes immensely.
Making maximum use of the opportunity, John Williams bashes out theme after theme from most of the nine films. The soundtrack really is a "John Williams Greatest Hits" collection. Williams also actually gets a cameo as well - apparently as an eye-patch wearing bar-tender in the Nepalese-like town, though I must admit I missed it. (I've seen comment online that this is his first on-screen appearance: actually not true... he was conducting the orchestra in the "bird-lady's concert hall" in "Home Alone 2").
There are also a huge number of similarities I saw in certain scenes with other cinematic releases outside of the Star Wars universe:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - in two particular scenes;
"Dunkirk" - but done properly!
"Dora and the Lost City of Gold" - it doesn't make any physics sense here either!
"Power Rangers" - just because of one of the characters - you'll know the one
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" - but to say more would be a spoiler!
And there are probably others I've forgotten!
One of my key issues with "The Last Jedi" was the way in which it invented mad-cap tasks, objects and people that had to be completed/found for the plot to be moved forwards. A massive and pointless diversion to a casino planet, for example, was made just to get into a secure area of an imperial vessel: something in this film they 'just do'!
This movie also suffers to a degree from the disease of 'McGuffinitis'. Where's the beacon? There's a dagger that must be found; Where's the interpreter?; etc. It's all very formulaic. But at least in this case, there is a certain logical flow that follows within the plot.
The LP soundtrack of "Star Wars" got me into a lifelong love of film music. One of the last tracks on the soundtrack of the first film was called "The Last Battle". Well, THAT wasn't true! There have been so many space battles since then that we've all lost count. But we all knew this would build to a doozy of a finale, and the film doesn't disappoint. There is utter mayhem in the skies: WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE HENCHMEN'S FAMILIES?
It all drives to a satisfying ending for me and feels like a good closure to the saga. Is it perfect? No, not at all. It really sets itself with too much to do, and then tries to do it all within the available running time. The film will - and has by looking at the volume of IMDB 1* ratings - upset a lot of the fan-boys. But, you know what? Stuff 'em! The film should be judged on how it makes YOU feel as a standalone piece of entertainment, rather than as a part of some sort of pseudo-religious cult. And I personally think Abrams did a pretty decent job here of trying to please most of the people most of the time.
(For the full graphical review, please visit One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-2019/ )
