Search
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 Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Lestranger than fiction.
I must be one of the last people to watch this in the cinema, thanks to an irritating bout of sickness and – well – frankly total bloody apathy! For me this is the franchise that nobody asked for and nobody wanted. (Well, “nobody” is probably overstating the case, since there is probably a bunch of Potterheads out there who are shouting at me right now). But judging from the opinion of my daughter-in-law, who could win “Mastermind” with her knowledge of the original Potter series as her specialist subject, I am certainly not alone in my lack of enthusiasm.
The Plot
I’d really love to tell you about the plot. I really would! But I would struggle to pull all the multitude of strands together from J.K. Rowling’s story and coherently explain them to anyone. If Rowling had put ten thousand monkeys (not a million – it’s no bloody Shakespeare) into a room with typewriters and locked the door I wouldn’t be surprised.
Let me try at a high level….. The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in ‘Trump Tower’, but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are “closer than brothers” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone… which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of ‘Fake News’.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart’s schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have… well… a complete bugger’s muggle – – sorry – – muddle.
A plot that’s all at sea
Above all, I really can’t explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given ‘im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something… or I’d just not been intelligent enough to process the information…. or…. it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it’s the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The turns
The film’s a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my “Fantastic Beasts” review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film…. you’ll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
Wizards of the screen
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive – an ‘explosion’ in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular.
But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I’ve seen complain that this was a ‘filler’ film… a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it’s like the “Order of the Phoenix” of the prequels.
Final Thoughts
I dragged myself along to see this one because “I thought I should”. The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won’t – she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I’m afraid, lies at Rowling’s door alone.
The Plot
I’d really love to tell you about the plot. I really would! But I would struggle to pull all the multitude of strands together from J.K. Rowling’s story and coherently explain them to anyone. If Rowling had put ten thousand monkeys (not a million – it’s no bloody Shakespeare) into a room with typewriters and locked the door I wouldn’t be surprised.
Let me try at a high level….. The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in ‘Trump Tower’, but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are “closer than brothers” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone… which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of ‘Fake News’.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart’s schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have… well… a complete bugger’s muggle – – sorry – – muddle.
A plot that’s all at sea
Above all, I really can’t explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given ‘im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something… or I’d just not been intelligent enough to process the information…. or…. it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it’s the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The turns
The film’s a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my “Fantastic Beasts” review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film…. you’ll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
Wizards of the screen
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive – an ‘explosion’ in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular.
But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I’ve seen complain that this was a ‘filler’ film… a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it’s like the “Order of the Phoenix” of the prequels.
Final Thoughts
I dragged myself along to see this one because “I thought I should”. The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won’t – she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I’m afraid, lies at Rowling’s door alone.
Lenard (726 KP) rated Blinded by the Light (2019) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
It's a Sin
1987 Luton, UK: New wave rules the radio, Margaret Thatcher controls the country which is leading to closed factories and people losing their jobs, and Pakistanis are moving into neighbors which the "white" majority resents (when people are losing their jobs, it is easier to blame the "others" moving in instead of the government whose policies have led to these losses). But I digress. Ravi is trapped between two cultures, his Pakistani family and the culture he grows up in in Luton. One day at his school, he meets a Sikh student who gives him two cassettes by Bruce Springsteen and he meets a writing teacher who encourages him to write what he knows. Like the culture clash in his soul, his heart is consumed by these Springsteen songs and expressing his feelings through writing. As is wont in these films, his parents and town learn to accept him and his obvious talent.
Two things struck me about the film. The first is the costume for the father. With the exception of the wedding party which I will discuss in my second, the father is dressed in a dress shirt, tie, and slacks, sometimes a sportcoat. This is the traditional outfit of a 1st generation immigrant. Even though he works in a factory manufacturing cars, he still goes to work or out in public dressed like a successful businessman/financial advisor. There is a belief that in order to achieve success, you must dress as though you have already attained that success. The second is the connection to Bend It Like Beckham, Chadha's previous film, which had a lot more success in the US. There is the best friend's parent who accepts the protagonist quicker than their own. But I am talking about the wedding party scene. In both films, the family is having a wedding party and the protagonist has to leave because there is something urgent that they need to do (play in a soccer game, buy tickets to a Springsteen concert). Family members assist the protagonist to get away without the parents noticing and in each case conflict ensues that brings a feeling of abandonment from the immediate family.
Two things struck me about the film. The first is the costume for the father. With the exception of the wedding party which I will discuss in my second, the father is dressed in a dress shirt, tie, and slacks, sometimes a sportcoat. This is the traditional outfit of a 1st generation immigrant. Even though he works in a factory manufacturing cars, he still goes to work or out in public dressed like a successful businessman/financial advisor. There is a belief that in order to achieve success, you must dress as though you have already attained that success. The second is the connection to Bend It Like Beckham, Chadha's previous film, which had a lot more success in the US. There is the best friend's parent who accepts the protagonist quicker than their own. But I am talking about the wedding party scene. In both films, the family is having a wedding party and the protagonist has to leave because there is something urgent that they need to do (play in a soccer game, buy tickets to a Springsteen concert). Family members assist the protagonist to get away without the parents noticing and in each case conflict ensues that brings a feeling of abandonment from the immediate family.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Gods Of Egypt (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
God Awful
Those of you who keep up to date with the goings on in the film world may be thinking Gods of Egypt was released way back in February; and you’d be right for thinking that.
The film, directed by Alex Proyas (I, Robot, Knowing) performed so poorly in America at the start of the year that its UK release was scrapped, until now. But is the resulting film as bad as its figures would suggest? Or are we looking at a future cult classic?
Good god no. From shocking dialogue to laughable special effects; Gods of Egypt is a dreadful dirge of a movie with practically no saving graces. It’s just that bad.
The survival of mankind hangs in the balance when Set (Gerard Butler), the merciless god of darkness, usurps Egypt’s throne and plunges the empire into chaos. Hoping to save the world and rescue his true love, a defiant mortal named Bek (Brenton Thwaites) forms an alliance with the powerful god Horus (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) to stop Set before he destroys everything.
Thankfully, the plot itself isn’t too bad and has a vaguely interesting premise. The problem is how it is executed. Alex Proyas takes our protagonists on a rollercoaster ride of bland set pieces, populated by cardboard enemies and special effects that manage to look expensive and awful at the same time.
Gold, blood red, sparkling granite and deep, rich blacks all combine for a nauseating colour palate, only worsened by the cinematography. No shot is lingered on for any great amount of time – it’s like Alex Proyas was too terrified of allowing his audience to see the mess up close, shifting from frame to frame every few seconds.
Elsewhere, the acting is fairly inconsistent. Gerard Butler yet again channels his character from 300, while newcomer Brenton Thwaites looks po-faced as he spouts complete and utter drivel, a departure from his promising turn in 2013’s The Giver. The painful attempts at comedy fall flat on every single occasion and ensure no cast member leaves with their dignity intact.
2016 has thrown up some pretty bad films. London Has Fallen, Through the Looking Glass and Zoolander 2 spring immediately to mind, but this manages to outdo them by a country mile.
Overall, Gods of Egypt leaves you with more questions than it answers. Why is the Egyptian god of darkness Scottish? Why is it over two hours long? What on earth was Summit Entertainment thinking pouring $140million into this thing?
There is some good news at the end of this rather murky rainbow however. Your question as to whether you should go and see it may well be the only question that can be answered.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/18/god-awful-gods-of-egypt-review/
The film, directed by Alex Proyas (I, Robot, Knowing) performed so poorly in America at the start of the year that its UK release was scrapped, until now. But is the resulting film as bad as its figures would suggest? Or are we looking at a future cult classic?
Good god no. From shocking dialogue to laughable special effects; Gods of Egypt is a dreadful dirge of a movie with practically no saving graces. It’s just that bad.
The survival of mankind hangs in the balance when Set (Gerard Butler), the merciless god of darkness, usurps Egypt’s throne and plunges the empire into chaos. Hoping to save the world and rescue his true love, a defiant mortal named Bek (Brenton Thwaites) forms an alliance with the powerful god Horus (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) to stop Set before he destroys everything.
Thankfully, the plot itself isn’t too bad and has a vaguely interesting premise. The problem is how it is executed. Alex Proyas takes our protagonists on a rollercoaster ride of bland set pieces, populated by cardboard enemies and special effects that manage to look expensive and awful at the same time.
Gold, blood red, sparkling granite and deep, rich blacks all combine for a nauseating colour palate, only worsened by the cinematography. No shot is lingered on for any great amount of time – it’s like Alex Proyas was too terrified of allowing his audience to see the mess up close, shifting from frame to frame every few seconds.
Elsewhere, the acting is fairly inconsistent. Gerard Butler yet again channels his character from 300, while newcomer Brenton Thwaites looks po-faced as he spouts complete and utter drivel, a departure from his promising turn in 2013’s The Giver. The painful attempts at comedy fall flat on every single occasion and ensure no cast member leaves with their dignity intact.
2016 has thrown up some pretty bad films. London Has Fallen, Through the Looking Glass and Zoolander 2 spring immediately to mind, but this manages to outdo them by a country mile.
Overall, Gods of Egypt leaves you with more questions than it answers. Why is the Egyptian god of darkness Scottish? Why is it over two hours long? What on earth was Summit Entertainment thinking pouring $140million into this thing?
There is some good news at the end of this rather murky rainbow however. Your question as to whether you should go and see it may well be the only question that can be answered.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/18/god-awful-gods-of-egypt-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bumblebee (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm really torn by this film. I enjoyed it but at the same time it isn't amazing. It's got all the classic formulas in it. Charlie is still trying to make sense of her father's death. Bumblebee is trying to remember who he is. Together they help each other... it really could be one of many films.
Something I'm pleased to discover is that other people were getting Herbie vibes from this. In the notes I was jotting down for my review I put "this would make a pretty good Herbie story". And then I pondered the possibility that Herbie was a Transformer who was broken and stuck in his Beetle shape.
The opening battle on Cyberton is surprisingly natural considering it's made up of CGId robots. It makes for a great opening. But I wasn't wowed. I should have been blown away by the effects and I just wasn't.
Bumblebee as a character was a real joy. After his memory is damaged he's basically back to being a scared little boy and the animation reflects that incredibly well. Everything about him is inquisitive and childlike, and all the little touches are there to really bring him to life. He's very human in the moments before he gets his memory back.
There are so many of his scenes that were genuinely pleasing to watch. Him waving at Charlie as she chases after them. The cassette tapes. The extended toilet paper prank and house demolition scenes. Probably my favourite bit though is where he's sitting in the forest and she's trying to fix him, his fidgeting is adorable.
When it comes to the cast feels like we've got the members of a comedy working on a drama/action film. They work well with what they've got and we get some enjoyable performances but there's nothing that really sticks in the memory.
I still enjoyed Bumblebee but I can't say that I found it to be any better than previous films in the franchise, certainly not on the action and graphics side of things. The soundtrack is full of some classic tunes that are very well placed, and the overall vibe of that combined with everything else is spot on for the 80s. You do forget it's set in 1987 though, which means that little things pop up like the TV and the technology that the military have and you feel like the films has already dated.
This is the first Transformers movie to get a PG rating in the UK, previously they've all been rated 12. It's definitely family friendly... but... it reminds me more and more of Herbie every moment I think about it.
As a last thought... seriously, Charlie? You have your moments. "If we're driving down the street and we see someone you have to hide"... if you're driving down the street he's a car anyway, hiding would make it more obvious that he's not just a car. You draw more attention to Bee than he does. Blindfolding yourself with Memo's shirt (weird moment in the film by the way, creepily out of place) and then standing out the sunroof? That won't make you more noticeable to passersby.
What you should do
It's an enjoyable film and should make for a fun family outing. I don't think there's any particular rush to see it in the cinema though.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Who wouldn't want they're own Transformer who can change into any car it wants AND can dance?!
Something I'm pleased to discover is that other people were getting Herbie vibes from this. In the notes I was jotting down for my review I put "this would make a pretty good Herbie story". And then I pondered the possibility that Herbie was a Transformer who was broken and stuck in his Beetle shape.
The opening battle on Cyberton is surprisingly natural considering it's made up of CGId robots. It makes for a great opening. But I wasn't wowed. I should have been blown away by the effects and I just wasn't.
Bumblebee as a character was a real joy. After his memory is damaged he's basically back to being a scared little boy and the animation reflects that incredibly well. Everything about him is inquisitive and childlike, and all the little touches are there to really bring him to life. He's very human in the moments before he gets his memory back.
There are so many of his scenes that were genuinely pleasing to watch. Him waving at Charlie as she chases after them. The cassette tapes. The extended toilet paper prank and house demolition scenes. Probably my favourite bit though is where he's sitting in the forest and she's trying to fix him, his fidgeting is adorable.
When it comes to the cast feels like we've got the members of a comedy working on a drama/action film. They work well with what they've got and we get some enjoyable performances but there's nothing that really sticks in the memory.
I still enjoyed Bumblebee but I can't say that I found it to be any better than previous films in the franchise, certainly not on the action and graphics side of things. The soundtrack is full of some classic tunes that are very well placed, and the overall vibe of that combined with everything else is spot on for the 80s. You do forget it's set in 1987 though, which means that little things pop up like the TV and the technology that the military have and you feel like the films has already dated.
This is the first Transformers movie to get a PG rating in the UK, previously they've all been rated 12. It's definitely family friendly... but... it reminds me more and more of Herbie every moment I think about it.
As a last thought... seriously, Charlie? You have your moments. "If we're driving down the street and we see someone you have to hide"... if you're driving down the street he's a car anyway, hiding would make it more obvious that he's not just a car. You draw more attention to Bee than he does. Blindfolding yourself with Memo's shirt (weird moment in the film by the way, creepily out of place) and then standing out the sunroof? That won't make you more noticeable to passersby.
What you should do
It's an enjoyable film and should make for a fun family outing. I don't think there's any particular rush to see it in the cinema though.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Who wouldn't want they're own Transformer who can change into any car it wants AND can dance?!
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Wicker Man (1973) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
Where Is Rowan Morrison?
Trying to get into the "horror mood" this year I thought I would revisit a "cult classic" which I hadn't seen in 20+ years and it is still as haunting as I remember.
Police Sergeant Howie arrives to a small island community in search of a missing girl. His questions are immediately met with shrugs and denials any of the locals know the girl. He then visits the local pub where he quickly begins to surmise the situation is not what it seems and he is not being told the truth. The local barkeep sets him up with a meal and a room while his daughter sings a haunting song along with the rest of the barroom customers.
The next day Howie searches further about the island, questions more locals, visits the schoolhouse where he hears young girls being taught the finer points of the penis, but learns little about the fate of the missing girl. Eventually, he believes the girl has been murdered under suspicious circumstances and goes to visit the matriarch of the area, Lord Summerisle.
He finds out about the pagan beliefs the island dwellers believe as well as the history of Summerisle's ancestors when they first visited the island. He continues to see disturbing happenings around town including young naked girls dancing, singing and jumping through a fire as well as people wearing masks.
Once the "final reveal" has happened, he realizes he has been beguiled all along and the cult has a fate for him already planned out.
In watching some behind the scenes footage, Christopher Lee said this film is one of his personal favorites. He was eager to break out of the same old "Dracula" formula films he had been doing in the 1970s and accepted this part not knowing much about it ahead of time. The part was written for him in mind. Lee longtime film companion, Peter Cushing, was originally supposed to portray Sergeant Howie, but couldn't due to schedule conflicts.
Edward Woodward actually dons the part of Howie in a very interesting way. He makes the audience believe his naivety about his surroundings at the onset and slowly lets you figure things out along with him as the film goes. He actually did not even want to see the "Wicker Man" set until he filmed it so he could be surprised and his terror would be genuine.
This is the part Christopher Lee was born to play. Modern audiences will know him only from Star Wars and Lord of the Rings; however, he was one of the "Masters of the Macabre" in the 1970s and 1980s completing a ton of horror films most of which are cheesy but still worth watching due to their style and his charisma. He was just perfect for this role since you can believe almost anything he says and only watch in disbelief as he marches down the street dancing and singing with the rest of his cult members toward their final ritual.
I'm sure coming from the US, I don't know some of the history and wild popularity this film has had and continues to have in the UK, but it is still one of my favorites.
Police Sergeant Howie arrives to a small island community in search of a missing girl. His questions are immediately met with shrugs and denials any of the locals know the girl. He then visits the local pub where he quickly begins to surmise the situation is not what it seems and he is not being told the truth. The local barkeep sets him up with a meal and a room while his daughter sings a haunting song along with the rest of the barroom customers.
The next day Howie searches further about the island, questions more locals, visits the schoolhouse where he hears young girls being taught the finer points of the penis, but learns little about the fate of the missing girl. Eventually, he believes the girl has been murdered under suspicious circumstances and goes to visit the matriarch of the area, Lord Summerisle.
He finds out about the pagan beliefs the island dwellers believe as well as the history of Summerisle's ancestors when they first visited the island. He continues to see disturbing happenings around town including young naked girls dancing, singing and jumping through a fire as well as people wearing masks.
Once the "final reveal" has happened, he realizes he has been beguiled all along and the cult has a fate for him already planned out.
In watching some behind the scenes footage, Christopher Lee said this film is one of his personal favorites. He was eager to break out of the same old "Dracula" formula films he had been doing in the 1970s and accepted this part not knowing much about it ahead of time. The part was written for him in mind. Lee longtime film companion, Peter Cushing, was originally supposed to portray Sergeant Howie, but couldn't due to schedule conflicts.
Edward Woodward actually dons the part of Howie in a very interesting way. He makes the audience believe his naivety about his surroundings at the onset and slowly lets you figure things out along with him as the film goes. He actually did not even want to see the "Wicker Man" set until he filmed it so he could be surprised and his terror would be genuine.
This is the part Christopher Lee was born to play. Modern audiences will know him only from Star Wars and Lord of the Rings; however, he was one of the "Masters of the Macabre" in the 1970s and 1980s completing a ton of horror films most of which are cheesy but still worth watching due to their style and his charisma. He was just perfect for this role since you can believe almost anything he says and only watch in disbelief as he marches down the street dancing and singing with the rest of his cult members toward their final ritual.
I'm sure coming from the US, I don't know some of the history and wild popularity this film has had and continues to have in the UK, but it is still one of my favorites.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bel Canto (2018) in Movies
Jun 11, 2020
The novel of Bel Canto is one of my favourites, and though I haven't read it for years I still recommend it to people. When I saw that they'd made a film of it I was ecstatic. But of course my luck wasn't working well! No mainstream release in the UK and seemingly not available in any way to see, then on a whim I searched Amazon and there it was, available as a digital release... GIMME!!
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html
Roxanne has been hired to play at a private function in South America. It should be a simple performance, but when the residence is taken hostage the evening goes on a little longer than expected. The demands are seemingly simple, but no one wants to succumb to the, so the hostages must settle in for an extended stay with their captors.
The basis for the novel and film is the 1996 Japanese embassy hostage crisis where 14 members of the MRIA took hundreds of high level diplomats and officials hostage. With just a cursory look at the details of that incident it appears that several key points have been kept in some way but artistic licence has been used to give us a snapshot inside during the event.
I love Julianne Moore, so having her name attached was a definite bonus, especially alongside Ken Watanabe. The pair have a good dynamic and the language barrier imposed by the script (for all the characters) adds a different dynamic to the film. Watching them trying to communicate with each other and seeing the little touches it brought was very interesting.
When it came to the acting I thought the cast was incredibly well balanced, the standard was good and having such a variety of people meant that there was a lot to pick up on.
This does however come with a slight drawback, there are a lot of characters and they all have something about them to make them interesting... there's have been no point in having them if that wasn't the case. At no time do you have a chance to learn about any of them properly though, as soon as there's an opportunity we have to cut to a different scene and we're left with snippets. While that wasn't a negative for me overall it could have been an interesting addition, and at an hour and forty in length I think there was room for some more character pieces without making it too long.
Here's my one major negative about Bel Canto. Roxanne is a world-renowned opera singer, Julianne Moore is not... so they taught her to lipsync to the pieces that Renee Fleming would be voicing. Quite simply put, on screen it looks terrible. In some films you see people singing and don't realise it isn't them, there might be tricksy camera angles or decent lipsyncing, in those instances you don't notice and it all flows well. Without knowing this going into Bel Canto it was still very obvious. I'd be tempted to say close your eyes when she starts singing, you will miss some reaction shots of other characters but Fleming's vocals are wonderful but Moore's rendition is lacking the gravitas to go with it.
The bond that is created between the hostages and with their captors is shown extremely well and that makes the way the film plays out even more affecting. There's certainly room for improvement, but what comes to the screen is a very interesting twist on the original event and the novel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/bel-canto-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Censor (2021) in Movies
Sep 3, 2021
Niamh Algar is fabulous (1 more)
Novel story and great direction
A genuinely original story (at last!)
Positives:
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mountain Between Us (2017) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film not quite sure what it’s trying to be.
Idris Elba after scoring a mammoth hit with UK TV’s “Luther” has really struggled to make a breakthrough as a leading man into A-grade movies. Although he’s had some strong supporting roles (“Molly’s Game” and “Star Trek Beyond” for example) and small bit parts in the Marvel universe, when he has landed a lead role they are in films best forgotton (e.g. “Bastille Day”; “The Dark Tower”). This is seldom down to his performance. Here he is given more of a chance to shine, in what is almost a two-hander with Kate Winslet for most of the film. And he is the best thing in the film: lots of the brooding look that he is so famous for.
Elba plays Ben Bass, a neuro-surgeon stranded at Boise airport who has to get back to Baltimore for an important operation. Winslett playing Alex Martin, a famous photo-journalist, is stranded with him and equally desperate to travel as she is due to get married in New York the following day. The two club together to hire a plane from charter pilot Walter (Beau Bridges, “Homeland”, “The Descendents”). But in terrible conditions, and with a medical emergency, the plane crash lands in the snow of the Rockies, and Ben and Alex (together with Walter’s Labrador) need to struggle to survive in the wilderness. The problem is that they are an odd couple, and constantly wind each other up the wrong way.
It’s a well-worn tale that has been portrayed many times before in films like “Alive” and “The Grey”, so what makes the film live or die is the quality of the screenplay and the chemistry between the characters. Unfortunately the former by Chris Weitz (co-writer on “Rogue One“) is rather clunky, and in the latter case I just didn’t feel it. Winslett’s character is just so goddamn whiney and annoying that the thought of Ben doing anything with her other than hitting her with the shovel and feeding her to the dog seems unlikely! Winslett seems to sense that too, since I never felt she was completely invested in her character. Aside from one (impressive) monologue, I found it to be a so-so performance from her.
Aside from Elba the other star of the show is the landscape of the High Uintascape in North East Utah of the which is beautifully filmed, on location by Mandy Walker (“Hidden Figures“).
The story leaps from improbability to improbability and raises more questions than it answers: in a survival situation should you walk or stay put? If you have a dog, should you eat it* and what condiments are appropriate? Does an iced-over river have any current flowing under the ice? If they both died, would the audience care?
No spoilers with answers to any of these (*apart from the dog… just joking, they don’t!) , but the ending is as corny as you can get… but it still gave me a lump in my throat. #suckered!
Directed by Hany Abu-Assad, overall if you have a rainy afternoon you need to fill then this a perfectly pleasant movie to veg in front of, but it neither completely satisfies as a romance nor as an adventure flick but falls rather uncomfortably between the two stools.
Elba plays Ben Bass, a neuro-surgeon stranded at Boise airport who has to get back to Baltimore for an important operation. Winslett playing Alex Martin, a famous photo-journalist, is stranded with him and equally desperate to travel as she is due to get married in New York the following day. The two club together to hire a plane from charter pilot Walter (Beau Bridges, “Homeland”, “The Descendents”). But in terrible conditions, and with a medical emergency, the plane crash lands in the snow of the Rockies, and Ben and Alex (together with Walter’s Labrador) need to struggle to survive in the wilderness. The problem is that they are an odd couple, and constantly wind each other up the wrong way.
It’s a well-worn tale that has been portrayed many times before in films like “Alive” and “The Grey”, so what makes the film live or die is the quality of the screenplay and the chemistry between the characters. Unfortunately the former by Chris Weitz (co-writer on “Rogue One“) is rather clunky, and in the latter case I just didn’t feel it. Winslett’s character is just so goddamn whiney and annoying that the thought of Ben doing anything with her other than hitting her with the shovel and feeding her to the dog seems unlikely! Winslett seems to sense that too, since I never felt she was completely invested in her character. Aside from one (impressive) monologue, I found it to be a so-so performance from her.
Aside from Elba the other star of the show is the landscape of the High Uintascape in North East Utah of the which is beautifully filmed, on location by Mandy Walker (“Hidden Figures“).
The story leaps from improbability to improbability and raises more questions than it answers: in a survival situation should you walk or stay put? If you have a dog, should you eat it* and what condiments are appropriate? Does an iced-over river have any current flowing under the ice? If they both died, would the audience care?
No spoilers with answers to any of these (*apart from the dog… just joking, they don’t!) , but the ending is as corny as you can get… but it still gave me a lump in my throat. #suckered!
Directed by Hany Abu-Assad, overall if you have a rainy afternoon you need to fill then this a perfectly pleasant movie to veg in front of, but it neither completely satisfies as a romance nor as an adventure flick but falls rather uncomfortably between the two stools.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Captain Fantastic (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Dysfunctionally functional.
The second of my catch-up films for next Sunday’s Oscars, this time featuring Viggo Mortensen who is up for a Best Actor Oscar.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.