Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
As part of my project to compile a coffee table book called 21st Century cinema: 200 Unmissable Films, I have found it interesting, but not surprising, that almost 10% of the list since the year 2000 are animated features. It is an art form that Pixar and Disney especially, but many smaller studios, are excelling in, because of technological advances, and the free range of realising an imaginative vision. The trouble often is that they aren’t my first port of call anymore now I don’t have a kid around to watch them with. So it takes me some time to catch up on the good ones these days.
Also, for every good one there are several really lame ones, designed to get families into cinemas and take their money without much concession to a good script. It only takes the bad experience of a couple of those to put you off the genre as an adult. It can be hard to remember that some are made only with 6 year olds in mind. Frozen, for example. They have their place, and the phenomenon of which ones kids are drawn to is a different study altogether. For the purposes of my list, I am looking for the ones that can entertain young and older audiences at the same time. And, to date, no one has done that better than Pixar.
The benchmark, for me, remains Monsters Inc, The Incredibles and the Toy Story series. The latter especially, have a great knack of pleasing all generations. The key is always the writing. Animation styles and techniques can impress the eye, but it is always the theme, the relationships and the words that make an animated film enduring. Music also plays a big part; as does the level of humour. Both incredibly intangible arts that you can’t just buy.
I watched Coco on a Sunday morning – the perfect time to watch an animated film, by law! Chances are you will be a little hungover (I was) and susceptible to the inevitable sentimentality you are about to experience. The first thing that struck me was the colours! Embracing a Latin American cultural canvas, I don’t think I have ever seen such a vivid rainbow attacking my senses. From the naked flames of the candles, to the warm tones of the sunlight and the almost neon glow on display around the dead and the world of the afterlife, it was a visual treat I can honestly say I have never experienced before.
Oh, yes, Coco is about dying, if you didn’t know! And to say more about the genius of their approach to it, would be classed as a spoiler! The action takes place on Diá de Muertos (the day of the dead), when family members can revisit their loved ones, as long as they have been remembered. Our hero, young Miguel, loves music. But his family have banned him from listening to, or playing, it because of the shame surrounding a long dead ancestor. The magic of the day leads him to the underworld of the dead, to find out the truth and save the day.
Of course, once there, he meets all sorts of strange characters, and is lead on a fateful journey with lots of unexpected twists. Again, we won’t go into who, or why for the sake of spoilers. Suffice to say, the ideas, emotion and sense of righteousness flow, stirred up in the mix of constant moments of humour, some that land, some that don’t quite, at a pace fitting, and demanded, by young audiences. The ultimate aim being to reveal the truth behind the family story and to allow the dead to be remembered for their real worth.
On the negatives first: it is all pitched at quite a young audience, in the same way one of Pixar’s less successful films, Cars, is. Which means a lot of the humour lacks the sophistication needed to make it a classic. Also, for a film about the love and joy of music, the songs are only OK, and not especially memorable, although the Oscar winning main theme “Remember Me” serves its purpose very well in the climax. There are also one or two dips in the pacing of scenes that break the spell; surely the cornerstone rule of animated films: don’t drop the ball! Something both Wall-E and Up do at points, spoiling the overall impression of something so glorious in their best moments.
The power of Grandmas
To be more positive, we have to acknowledge the very, very high bar that Pixar set themselves. From an animation point of view, if this film had been released in 2001, we’d be in raptures about it! It is beautiful to look at! And the attention to detail is extraordinary, allowing for many re-watches, just to see the things they have put in there to largely amuse themselves. As a vision of an idea brought to life it is a consummate success! It is, essentially, so likeable. And at its heart, once again, right on the money.
It isn’t called Miguel. It isn’t called The Day of the Dead. It is called Coco. And by the end, you realise why that is important. Death is sad. Dementia is also an awful, awful thing. The strength of Coco is taking these difficult subjects and shining a meaningful light on them, that not only comments intelligently on them, but breaks the heart with the truth of it all. It takes a while to get there with this one, but the pay-off is sublime, yet again! Remember me, a simple sentiment that goes a long, long way!
As a side note, there is a controversial, but massively effective medical technique being utilised in the real world, with alzheimers sufferers, that uses music to trigger memory. It’s application and results are astonishing, for their ability to bring people “back to life”. Which, naturally, moved me immensely. To think the best moment of Coco isn’t just wish fulfilment in a sentimental world, but a real thing that can be done!
Sentimentality aside, Coco is a good film, in every sense of the word. As a parent, I would revel in the opportunity to show this to a child, for the positive conversations it might invoke. The aspects of cinema magic needed to make it an experience worth having are all there. To fault it is only to be unnecessarily picky. Better to go on the journey and enjoy it for what it is. Which, increasingly, is my mantra for watching anything. Who would not hope that someone chooses to celebrate life, with the thought “Remember Me”?
Also, for every good one there are several really lame ones, designed to get families into cinemas and take their money without much concession to a good script. It only takes the bad experience of a couple of those to put you off the genre as an adult. It can be hard to remember that some are made only with 6 year olds in mind. Frozen, for example. They have their place, and the phenomenon of which ones kids are drawn to is a different study altogether. For the purposes of my list, I am looking for the ones that can entertain young and older audiences at the same time. And, to date, no one has done that better than Pixar.
The benchmark, for me, remains Monsters Inc, The Incredibles and the Toy Story series. The latter especially, have a great knack of pleasing all generations. The key is always the writing. Animation styles and techniques can impress the eye, but it is always the theme, the relationships and the words that make an animated film enduring. Music also plays a big part; as does the level of humour. Both incredibly intangible arts that you can’t just buy.
I watched Coco on a Sunday morning – the perfect time to watch an animated film, by law! Chances are you will be a little hungover (I was) and susceptible to the inevitable sentimentality you are about to experience. The first thing that struck me was the colours! Embracing a Latin American cultural canvas, I don’t think I have ever seen such a vivid rainbow attacking my senses. From the naked flames of the candles, to the warm tones of the sunlight and the almost neon glow on display around the dead and the world of the afterlife, it was a visual treat I can honestly say I have never experienced before.
Oh, yes, Coco is about dying, if you didn’t know! And to say more about the genius of their approach to it, would be classed as a spoiler! The action takes place on Diá de Muertos (the day of the dead), when family members can revisit their loved ones, as long as they have been remembered. Our hero, young Miguel, loves music. But his family have banned him from listening to, or playing, it because of the shame surrounding a long dead ancestor. The magic of the day leads him to the underworld of the dead, to find out the truth and save the day.
Of course, once there, he meets all sorts of strange characters, and is lead on a fateful journey with lots of unexpected twists. Again, we won’t go into who, or why for the sake of spoilers. Suffice to say, the ideas, emotion and sense of righteousness flow, stirred up in the mix of constant moments of humour, some that land, some that don’t quite, at a pace fitting, and demanded, by young audiences. The ultimate aim being to reveal the truth behind the family story and to allow the dead to be remembered for their real worth.
On the negatives first: it is all pitched at quite a young audience, in the same way one of Pixar’s less successful films, Cars, is. Which means a lot of the humour lacks the sophistication needed to make it a classic. Also, for a film about the love and joy of music, the songs are only OK, and not especially memorable, although the Oscar winning main theme “Remember Me” serves its purpose very well in the climax. There are also one or two dips in the pacing of scenes that break the spell; surely the cornerstone rule of animated films: don’t drop the ball! Something both Wall-E and Up do at points, spoiling the overall impression of something so glorious in their best moments.
The power of Grandmas
To be more positive, we have to acknowledge the very, very high bar that Pixar set themselves. From an animation point of view, if this film had been released in 2001, we’d be in raptures about it! It is beautiful to look at! And the attention to detail is extraordinary, allowing for many re-watches, just to see the things they have put in there to largely amuse themselves. As a vision of an idea brought to life it is a consummate success! It is, essentially, so likeable. And at its heart, once again, right on the money.
It isn’t called Miguel. It isn’t called The Day of the Dead. It is called Coco. And by the end, you realise why that is important. Death is sad. Dementia is also an awful, awful thing. The strength of Coco is taking these difficult subjects and shining a meaningful light on them, that not only comments intelligently on them, but breaks the heart with the truth of it all. It takes a while to get there with this one, but the pay-off is sublime, yet again! Remember me, a simple sentiment that goes a long, long way!
As a side note, there is a controversial, but massively effective medical technique being utilised in the real world, with alzheimers sufferers, that uses music to trigger memory. It’s application and results are astonishing, for their ability to bring people “back to life”. Which, naturally, moved me immensely. To think the best moment of Coco isn’t just wish fulfilment in a sentimental world, but a real thing that can be done!
Sentimentality aside, Coco is a good film, in every sense of the word. As a parent, I would revel in the opportunity to show this to a child, for the positive conversations it might invoke. The aspects of cinema magic needed to make it an experience worth having are all there. To fault it is only to be unnecessarily picky. Better to go on the journey and enjoy it for what it is. Which, increasingly, is my mantra for watching anything. Who would not hope that someone chooses to celebrate life, with the thought “Remember Me”?
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order in Video Games
Mar 1, 2020 (Updated Mar 1, 2020)
Wasted Potential
So I just finished Jedi: Fallen Order and it's left me feeling confused. Not because of some complex twist or story revelation, but because on paper I should have loved every minute of this game. You take the parkour movement and sense of adventure from a game like Uncharted and you give it to a Jedi, who we follow during some of the darkest days in the Star Wars lore and what do you get?
Apparently you get something that doesn't feel like Star Wars.
I have a fair number of problems with this game, so I'm going to go ahead and list them and explain why they bothered me so much during my experience playing through Fallen Order.
First of all, when this game dropped and did pretty well commercially and critically, EA were commended in the games media for having the guts to release a single-player, story based Star Wars game with no online play. When the reviews dropped just before the game's release, this news got me really hyped as I have never been much for online gaming and much prefer story based games over anything else. Now whilst EA did give us a single-player, offline Star Wars story, they did so in such a sloppy, janky, half-finished fashion.
I lost count of the amount of times that I had to restart my game because of loading errors or game breaking bugs. Almost every time I would enter a new area the characters would initially appear in a T-pose position and remain that way for a good few seconds until I approached them. Onscreen prompts would often fail to appear making the game's already confusing exploration methods even more unclear. I have not seen this much pop-in in a videogame since the first version of No Man's Sky. Almost every area was covered in murky textures upon initially entering them, with some entire structures and areas failing to render. During a few boss fights, the AI character would fail to attack me and just stand still and no matter how many blows I would land on them, their health bar would not budge until I fully reloaded the level. This sort of thing was present during every one of my play sessions and at a few points the game became almost unplayable due to it's glaring technical glitches. Also, I got this game as a Christmas gift, so it has been out for a decent amount of time. A game of this calibre, that has been out for months at this point, from a major studio like Respawn and a publisher like EA, not to mention being from a major franchise like Star Wars, - the fact that it is in the current broken state that it's in is frankly unacceptable.
The next issue I had was the story and characters in the game. The game's protagonist Cal, is an unsympathetic, whiny bitch of a character that got on my nerves every time he opened his mouth. The rest of the crew were also pretty bland, unendearing and lacking in much personality. I grew up loving the Star Wars universe, yet I found myself trying in vain to skip almost every cutscene and really not giving a crap what happens to any one of the characters. The villains were unengaging and the other side characters like Cal's master and the old dude that left holograms for Cal to find got increasingly annoying every time they appeared. The only character I found engaging throughout the whole game was Sister Merrin.
I always thought Jedi Knights were supposed to be extremely capable, powerful warriors, yet at no point in this game do you ever feel powerful in any significant way. The whole time, you feel on par with the non descript enemies that you are fighting. While I agree that the last major AAA single-player Star Wars game, The Force Unleashed was too easy, at least you felt powerful while playing as that character. The combat never feels as satisfying as it should due to the lack of dismemberment. The decision not to allow the player to chop off limbs makes it feels more like you are hitting enemy shaped piñatas with a big stick, rather than welding a laser sword of pure, raw energy. I also felt that there was a lack of variation in the combos and moves-set and found myself watching the same animations over and again no matter what combination of buttons I was mashing. Every fight in this game is hard and not in a fun,challenging way, but instead in a grinding, irritating way. The ridiculously long loading times also made dying even more frustrating. If you are going to design a game where the player is going to die frequently, you HAVE TO have a snappy respawn system in place à la Super Meat Boy or Hotline Miami. (Especially when your fucking studio is called RESPAWN, but I digress.) They were clearly going for a more defensive, methodical approach to the combat system, which is fine, but they should have given you a choice between that and a more aggressive, offensive skill tree, meaning that more play styles could be catered to. Another majorly annoying thing was the way that the game justified unlocking new skills for Cal, with him having out-of-the-blue flashbacks at seemingly random points in the story where he would suddenly remember that he could wall-run or double-jump. I hate when games do this, it feels extremely lazy and unjustified within the context of the story that is being presented. Another thing that bothered me gameplay-wise was the checkpoint system. The whole refilling your health = respawning the enemies thing felt really arcady and often broke immersion.
Something else that I hate in games is when the game tries to pretend that it is an open world game rather than a linear experience, which this game does. I don't understand why you would want to masquerade as an open world game when that mechanic has been so oversaturated for this entire generation. After you play through the game's intro and get access to the ship, you are given the impression that you can choose what order to visit each planet and progress though the game. However this is not the case. When I was first given the choice to pick a planet, I chose Dathomir as I am a big Darth Maul fan and thought it would be cool to explore his home turf. I got there and was making my way through the clear-as-mud holomap when I got to a section where I could not progress. There was a jump that I just could not make no matter how many times I tried. After eventually getting fed up I had to look up a walkthrough to find out how to progress whereupon I learned that you actually need to go to the other planet first and gain an ability to make this jump. Now even if I did design my game so poorly that I let the player go to the wrong planet on their first travel, I would have at least had the decency to put in a prompt at the un-passable jump to let the player know that they don't have the skills to progress here yet and to go to the other planet and return here later. It could have been a voiceover from a crew member or even an immersion-breaking piece of text, but something would have been nice to prevent me having to look up a walkthrough to learn this fact. Witnessing this ineptitude in game design from such a major studio was shocking. So yeah, from that point on, - lesson learned, - I just followed the checkpoints to decide what my next planet would be to travel to, but then why even give players the illusion of choice in this? Why not just usher the player automatically to the next planet they need to visit after they return to the ship?
My final and biggest issue with this game is despite it being a Star Wars game, it never really felt like Star Wars. I noticed this during the first third of the game in the some of the character designs. Some of the side characters looked more akin to something from Ratchet & Clank than from the Star Wars universe. Then as I was playing through Kashyyyk and fighting spiders and giant slugs, I'm thinking to myself, I don't ever remember Luke Skywalker doing this and that dude lived and trained in a swamp for like a year. Then the shark was well and truly jumped. Upon revisiting Dathomir and finally being able to make some progress, a character literally raises bodies from the ground for you to fight. That's right, they put zombies in a Star Wars game. I thought since Disney had taken control of Star Wars, that they were way stricter than Lucas ever was about what does and doesn't get into the Star Wars universe, so whoever greenlit this zombie shit over at Disney should really get the boot. I can't quite believe that I'm saying this, but if you want a more authentic and higher quality Star Wars videogame experience, go play Battlefront 2. Sure it may have had an extremely messy launch and been marred with controversy ever since, but at least it feels like Star Wars.
There were a sparse few things that I did enjoy. As I mentioned above, Merrin was a fairly engaging and well acted character. The Lightsaber customisation was also pretty neat. I also enjoyed the music and (SPOILERS,) the brief appearance that Darth Vader makes. However the music is only great because it's the Star Wars score and whilst Vader's appearance as an unstoppable force was cool here, I personally feel like it was done better in Rogue One.
So yeah, I kind of feel like I played a different game to everyone else. I really wanted to fall in love with this game and I kept waiting for it to win me over, but unfortunately it never did. I think that there is potential here for something better, mostly owed to the interesting time period the game is set in on the Star Wars timeline, so I really hope that they take the few good elements that were present in Fallen Order and improve upon everything else for the sequel.
Apparently you get something that doesn't feel like Star Wars.
I have a fair number of problems with this game, so I'm going to go ahead and list them and explain why they bothered me so much during my experience playing through Fallen Order.
First of all, when this game dropped and did pretty well commercially and critically, EA were commended in the games media for having the guts to release a single-player, story based Star Wars game with no online play. When the reviews dropped just before the game's release, this news got me really hyped as I have never been much for online gaming and much prefer story based games over anything else. Now whilst EA did give us a single-player, offline Star Wars story, they did so in such a sloppy, janky, half-finished fashion.
I lost count of the amount of times that I had to restart my game because of loading errors or game breaking bugs. Almost every time I would enter a new area the characters would initially appear in a T-pose position and remain that way for a good few seconds until I approached them. Onscreen prompts would often fail to appear making the game's already confusing exploration methods even more unclear. I have not seen this much pop-in in a videogame since the first version of No Man's Sky. Almost every area was covered in murky textures upon initially entering them, with some entire structures and areas failing to render. During a few boss fights, the AI character would fail to attack me and just stand still and no matter how many blows I would land on them, their health bar would not budge until I fully reloaded the level. This sort of thing was present during every one of my play sessions and at a few points the game became almost unplayable due to it's glaring technical glitches. Also, I got this game as a Christmas gift, so it has been out for a decent amount of time. A game of this calibre, that has been out for months at this point, from a major studio like Respawn and a publisher like EA, not to mention being from a major franchise like Star Wars, - the fact that it is in the current broken state that it's in is frankly unacceptable.
The next issue I had was the story and characters in the game. The game's protagonist Cal, is an unsympathetic, whiny bitch of a character that got on my nerves every time he opened his mouth. The rest of the crew were also pretty bland, unendearing and lacking in much personality. I grew up loving the Star Wars universe, yet I found myself trying in vain to skip almost every cutscene and really not giving a crap what happens to any one of the characters. The villains were unengaging and the other side characters like Cal's master and the old dude that left holograms for Cal to find got increasingly annoying every time they appeared. The only character I found engaging throughout the whole game was Sister Merrin.
I always thought Jedi Knights were supposed to be extremely capable, powerful warriors, yet at no point in this game do you ever feel powerful in any significant way. The whole time, you feel on par with the non descript enemies that you are fighting. While I agree that the last major AAA single-player Star Wars game, The Force Unleashed was too easy, at least you felt powerful while playing as that character. The combat never feels as satisfying as it should due to the lack of dismemberment. The decision not to allow the player to chop off limbs makes it feels more like you are hitting enemy shaped piñatas with a big stick, rather than welding a laser sword of pure, raw energy. I also felt that there was a lack of variation in the combos and moves-set and found myself watching the same animations over and again no matter what combination of buttons I was mashing. Every fight in this game is hard and not in a fun,challenging way, but instead in a grinding, irritating way. The ridiculously long loading times also made dying even more frustrating. If you are going to design a game where the player is going to die frequently, you HAVE TO have a snappy respawn system in place à la Super Meat Boy or Hotline Miami. (Especially when your fucking studio is called RESPAWN, but I digress.) They were clearly going for a more defensive, methodical approach to the combat system, which is fine, but they should have given you a choice between that and a more aggressive, offensive skill tree, meaning that more play styles could be catered to. Another majorly annoying thing was the way that the game justified unlocking new skills for Cal, with him having out-of-the-blue flashbacks at seemingly random points in the story where he would suddenly remember that he could wall-run or double-jump. I hate when games do this, it feels extremely lazy and unjustified within the context of the story that is being presented. Another thing that bothered me gameplay-wise was the checkpoint system. The whole refilling your health = respawning the enemies thing felt really arcady and often broke immersion.
Something else that I hate in games is when the game tries to pretend that it is an open world game rather than a linear experience, which this game does. I don't understand why you would want to masquerade as an open world game when that mechanic has been so oversaturated for this entire generation. After you play through the game's intro and get access to the ship, you are given the impression that you can choose what order to visit each planet and progress though the game. However this is not the case. When I was first given the choice to pick a planet, I chose Dathomir as I am a big Darth Maul fan and thought it would be cool to explore his home turf. I got there and was making my way through the clear-as-mud holomap when I got to a section where I could not progress. There was a jump that I just could not make no matter how many times I tried. After eventually getting fed up I had to look up a walkthrough to find out how to progress whereupon I learned that you actually need to go to the other planet first and gain an ability to make this jump. Now even if I did design my game so poorly that I let the player go to the wrong planet on their first travel, I would have at least had the decency to put in a prompt at the un-passable jump to let the player know that they don't have the skills to progress here yet and to go to the other planet and return here later. It could have been a voiceover from a crew member or even an immersion-breaking piece of text, but something would have been nice to prevent me having to look up a walkthrough to learn this fact. Witnessing this ineptitude in game design from such a major studio was shocking. So yeah, from that point on, - lesson learned, - I just followed the checkpoints to decide what my next planet would be to travel to, but then why even give players the illusion of choice in this? Why not just usher the player automatically to the next planet they need to visit after they return to the ship?
My final and biggest issue with this game is despite it being a Star Wars game, it never really felt like Star Wars. I noticed this during the first third of the game in the some of the character designs. Some of the side characters looked more akin to something from Ratchet & Clank than from the Star Wars universe. Then as I was playing through Kashyyyk and fighting spiders and giant slugs, I'm thinking to myself, I don't ever remember Luke Skywalker doing this and that dude lived and trained in a swamp for like a year. Then the shark was well and truly jumped. Upon revisiting Dathomir and finally being able to make some progress, a character literally raises bodies from the ground for you to fight. That's right, they put zombies in a Star Wars game. I thought since Disney had taken control of Star Wars, that they were way stricter than Lucas ever was about what does and doesn't get into the Star Wars universe, so whoever greenlit this zombie shit over at Disney should really get the boot. I can't quite believe that I'm saying this, but if you want a more authentic and higher quality Star Wars videogame experience, go play Battlefront 2. Sure it may have had an extremely messy launch and been marred with controversy ever since, but at least it feels like Star Wars.
There were a sparse few things that I did enjoy. As I mentioned above, Merrin was a fairly engaging and well acted character. The Lightsaber customisation was also pretty neat. I also enjoyed the music and (SPOILERS,) the brief appearance that Darth Vader makes. However the music is only great because it's the Star Wars score and whilst Vader's appearance as an unstoppable force was cool here, I personally feel like it was done better in Rogue One.
So yeah, I kind of feel like I played a different game to everyone else. I really wanted to fall in love with this game and I kept waiting for it to win me over, but unfortunately it never did. I think that there is potential here for something better, mostly owed to the interesting time period the game is set in on the Star Wars timeline, so I really hope that they take the few good elements that were present in Fallen Order and improve upon everything else for the sequel.
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.)
Hadley (567 KP) rated Handbook of Paranormal Powers in Books
Jun 2, 2019
I have always believed in the paranormal, but I am careful not to take everything at face value. When I picked up this book, I unfortunately took it at its face value, thinking that it was about how people developed these paranormal abilities and the things that they achieved with them.
But this book seems to have been written by a skeptic that disguised it as a book from a believer in the paranormal, which to say is a pretty clever way to sell a book when the belief in the paranormal is at an all time high. The author spends much of the book detailing people who have exhibited paranormal abilities just to quickly tear them down. I will say that Brian Haughton did a wonderful job on researching for this book, bringing up not only the history of paranormal abilities, but also self proclaimed psychics that readers may not have even heard of, such as Florence Cook, who had her abilities tested by none other than William Crookes( the discoverer of the element thallium).
Haughton's 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' should have been titled something else, mostly because it's a history lesson in ESP and also, obviously, from the point-of-view of a skeptic. Yet, it doesn't lack for reading by believers; one such part I found interesting was a part on dowsing- the supernatural ability to find hidden objects, substances, geographic features, or sometimes even people- which you may have seen someone doing by holding two rods to find underground water. This part was about when dowsing became popular in the seventeenth-century France, and was being considered 'evil': ". . .with the dowser Baroness de Beausoleil and her husband, a mining expert, journeying across Europe and allegedly locating ore deposits of iron, gold, and silver. The couple established a thriving mineral company, but when their methods of locating metal ores became known they were accused of practicing the 'black arts' and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. " Readers learn that it wasn't until the nineteenth century, with the rise of spiritualism, that dowsing was no longer considered 'evil.'
Another one that interested me concerned the comedian Andy Kaufman, and his pursuit to rid himself of a rare lung cancer with psychic healing: "In March 1984, US comedian Andy Kaufman traveled to the Philippines for a six- week course of psychic surgery after being diagnosed with a rare lung cancer. The surgeon, Jun Labo, performed the operation, and claimed that he had removed large cancerous tumors from Kaufman's body. On May 16, 1984, Kaufman died from renal failure as a consequence of a metastatic lung cancer. "
I hate, but also love this book, not because Haughton backs up all of the skeptic claims with scientific research and tests, but because he claimed this to be a handbook or paranormal powers. If you glance at the cover, just below the title is: 'discover the secrets of mind readers, mediums, and more' - this can be taken that it's written by someone who believes in the paranormal, as well as someone who may have had personal experiences with the unknown, but with that said, I did learn a lot about the history of paranormal powers as well as people I had never heard of.
To prove the skepticism in Haughton's writing, we can turn to page 173, where he writes about how to test whether or not a self-proclaimed psychic surgeon is real. But even before this page and throughout this book, Haughton explains someone doing an extraordinary thing only to quickly explain away why it was fake to begin with. The 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' reads a lot like a college thesis, that I found myself getting bored with the matter-of-fact tone. Some readers may enjoy reading essay-type books, but for me, it becomes repetitive enough that I don't remember much of the information I had just read.
Also, readers may come away with the feeling that Haughton doesn't care about the slight chance that some paranormal powers may be real, but instead he'd rather read about the scientific facts. I would only recommend this book to people who want to do a light reading on paranormal history, meaning mostly what made headlines in the news. For believers, I would suggest you go elsewhere.
But this book seems to have been written by a skeptic that disguised it as a book from a believer in the paranormal, which to say is a pretty clever way to sell a book when the belief in the paranormal is at an all time high. The author spends much of the book detailing people who have exhibited paranormal abilities just to quickly tear them down. I will say that Brian Haughton did a wonderful job on researching for this book, bringing up not only the history of paranormal abilities, but also self proclaimed psychics that readers may not have even heard of, such as Florence Cook, who had her abilities tested by none other than William Crookes( the discoverer of the element thallium).
Haughton's 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' should have been titled something else, mostly because it's a history lesson in ESP and also, obviously, from the point-of-view of a skeptic. Yet, it doesn't lack for reading by believers; one such part I found interesting was a part on dowsing- the supernatural ability to find hidden objects, substances, geographic features, or sometimes even people- which you may have seen someone doing by holding two rods to find underground water. This part was about when dowsing became popular in the seventeenth-century France, and was being considered 'evil': ". . .with the dowser Baroness de Beausoleil and her husband, a mining expert, journeying across Europe and allegedly locating ore deposits of iron, gold, and silver. The couple established a thriving mineral company, but when their methods of locating metal ores became known they were accused of practicing the 'black arts' and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. " Readers learn that it wasn't until the nineteenth century, with the rise of spiritualism, that dowsing was no longer considered 'evil.'
Another one that interested me concerned the comedian Andy Kaufman, and his pursuit to rid himself of a rare lung cancer with psychic healing: "In March 1984, US comedian Andy Kaufman traveled to the Philippines for a six- week course of psychic surgery after being diagnosed with a rare lung cancer. The surgeon, Jun Labo, performed the operation, and claimed that he had removed large cancerous tumors from Kaufman's body. On May 16, 1984, Kaufman died from renal failure as a consequence of a metastatic lung cancer. "
I hate, but also love this book, not because Haughton backs up all of the skeptic claims with scientific research and tests, but because he claimed this to be a handbook or paranormal powers. If you glance at the cover, just below the title is: 'discover the secrets of mind readers, mediums, and more' - this can be taken that it's written by someone who believes in the paranormal, as well as someone who may have had personal experiences with the unknown, but with that said, I did learn a lot about the history of paranormal powers as well as people I had never heard of.
To prove the skepticism in Haughton's writing, we can turn to page 173, where he writes about how to test whether or not a self-proclaimed psychic surgeon is real. But even before this page and throughout this book, Haughton explains someone doing an extraordinary thing only to quickly explain away why it was fake to begin with. The 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' reads a lot like a college thesis, that I found myself getting bored with the matter-of-fact tone. Some readers may enjoy reading essay-type books, but for me, it becomes repetitive enough that I don't remember much of the information I had just read.
Also, readers may come away with the feeling that Haughton doesn't care about the slight chance that some paranormal powers may be real, but instead he'd rather read about the scientific facts. I would only recommend this book to people who want to do a light reading on paranormal history, meaning mostly what made headlines in the news. For believers, I would suggest you go elsewhere.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film that leaves you in two minds.
After all the terrible reviews of this movie (“The Times” reviewer described it as “excreble” which is harsh indeed) I was steeling myself to reach for my 1* rating. I was happy to find that it wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting it to be. Indeed parts of it were positively good fun.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Disappointingly Average
I love The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo series. The Swedish films are excellent and David Fincher’s US adaptation was a decent watch too. Lisbeth Salander is such an iconic and well-written character, so her return to the big screen was met with much anticipation. With a new cast and new story I was looking forward to seeing it, catching a Limitless preview screening a few days before its general UK release. Unfortunately, it didn’t live up to my relatively high expectations.
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Is the MCU all out of surprises?
The Marvel Cinematic Universe has become one of the most successful movie franchises ever made, and it’s easy to see why. Featuring incredible actors, up-and-coming directors and that trademark sense of humour, each film in the MCU has something to offer.
That doesn’t mean they’re perfect however. The MCU has a distinct lack of decent villains, strong female characters and characters from ethnic minorities. In the run-up to this year’s Infinity War, Black Panther aims to turn what we know about Marvel on its head. But has it succeeded?
After the death of his father, T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) returns home to the African nation of Wakanda to take his rightful place as king. When a powerful enemy suddenly reappears, T’Challa’s mettle as king – and as Black Panther – gets tested when he’s drawn into a conflict that puts the fate of Wakanda and the entire world at risk. Faced with treachery and danger, the young king must rally his allies and release the full power of Black Panther to defeat his foes and secure the safety of his people.
The opening sequence of Black Panther is an absolute treat as the audience are given a brief history of Wakanda and the tribes from which it grew. It’s a great montage to kick off a film that’s packed with stunning visuals and gorgeous landscapes, even though some of the special effects are left wanting at times.
Cast wise, this is one of the strongest entries into the MCU. Chadwick Boseman absolutely embodies the young, naïve yet warm T’Challa beautifully and it’s nice to see his character given some reference points after his sudden inclusion in Captain America: Civil War. Elsewhere, Lupita Nyong’o is always a pleasure to see on screen and her love interest to Boseman keeps him grounded over the course of the runtime.
For me the standout character is Danai Gurira’s Okoye, leader of a group of female warriors ordered to protect Wakanda and its king no matter what the cost. She’s certainly not to be messed with and gets a pleasing arc throughout. The script also seems to work best when she’s on screen.
When it comes to the bad guy, director Ryan Coogler (Creed) gets it nearly spot on. After dozens of, shall we say, lacklustre villains, the MCU receives its best yet. Michael B. Jordan’s Killmonger is, despite his ridiculous name, absolutely brilliant. Menacing and oddly charming in equal measure, he does away with the tradition of bizarre villain motives in the MCU. In fact, his motives throughout feel entirely believable and the film feels more grounded because of this.
Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion
Martin Freeman’s Agent Ross is a strange addition to the cast, simply because his character isn’t essential to the plot. Freeman is always a magnetic presence but he really doesn’t have all that much to do. Finally, Andy Serkis reprises his role as arms dealer Ulysses Klaue and is great fun.
Looking at Wakanda itself, Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion. It certainly feels more real than the hollow golden towers of Asgard (something thankfully fixed in last year’s Thor: Ragnarok), and Wakanda is a great addition to the many locations the Marvel Cinematic Universe has created.
So, I’ve mentioned disappointing special effects twice in this review and whilst they aren’t terrible, there are a few occasions where they are a little poor – especially evident in the film’s finale. For all his exciting filming style, Coogler’s shot choices occasionally jar with the uninspiring and lifeless CGI. Some of the landscapes also feel like a brochure for Disney’s upcoming The Lion King live-action remake.
I think it’s time to talk about film politics, because as much as Black Panther is a great addition to the MCU and a fine solo movie in itself, the legacy it will leave on the industry will be absolutely huge. With a majority black cast, strong female characters and a black director, it’s progressive and incredibly brave in its choices.
Any less of a story, director or cast wouldn’t have made it work and despite some poor CGI and slight pacing issues at the start, Black Panther is one of the best solo Marvel movies in years. Bring on Infinity War.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/15/black-panther-review-is-the-mcu-all-out-of-surprises/
That doesn’t mean they’re perfect however. The MCU has a distinct lack of decent villains, strong female characters and characters from ethnic minorities. In the run-up to this year’s Infinity War, Black Panther aims to turn what we know about Marvel on its head. But has it succeeded?
After the death of his father, T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) returns home to the African nation of Wakanda to take his rightful place as king. When a powerful enemy suddenly reappears, T’Challa’s mettle as king – and as Black Panther – gets tested when he’s drawn into a conflict that puts the fate of Wakanda and the entire world at risk. Faced with treachery and danger, the young king must rally his allies and release the full power of Black Panther to defeat his foes and secure the safety of his people.
The opening sequence of Black Panther is an absolute treat as the audience are given a brief history of Wakanda and the tribes from which it grew. It’s a great montage to kick off a film that’s packed with stunning visuals and gorgeous landscapes, even though some of the special effects are left wanting at times.
Cast wise, this is one of the strongest entries into the MCU. Chadwick Boseman absolutely embodies the young, naïve yet warm T’Challa beautifully and it’s nice to see his character given some reference points after his sudden inclusion in Captain America: Civil War. Elsewhere, Lupita Nyong’o is always a pleasure to see on screen and her love interest to Boseman keeps him grounded over the course of the runtime.
For me the standout character is Danai Gurira’s Okoye, leader of a group of female warriors ordered to protect Wakanda and its king no matter what the cost. She’s certainly not to be messed with and gets a pleasing arc throughout. The script also seems to work best when she’s on screen.
When it comes to the bad guy, director Ryan Coogler (Creed) gets it nearly spot on. After dozens of, shall we say, lacklustre villains, the MCU receives its best yet. Michael B. Jordan’s Killmonger is, despite his ridiculous name, absolutely brilliant. Menacing and oddly charming in equal measure, he does away with the tradition of bizarre villain motives in the MCU. In fact, his motives throughout feel entirely believable and the film feels more grounded because of this.
Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion
Martin Freeman’s Agent Ross is a strange addition to the cast, simply because his character isn’t essential to the plot. Freeman is always a magnetic presence but he really doesn’t have all that much to do. Finally, Andy Serkis reprises his role as arms dealer Ulysses Klaue and is great fun.
Looking at Wakanda itself, Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion. It certainly feels more real than the hollow golden towers of Asgard (something thankfully fixed in last year’s Thor: Ragnarok), and Wakanda is a great addition to the many locations the Marvel Cinematic Universe has created.
So, I’ve mentioned disappointing special effects twice in this review and whilst they aren’t terrible, there are a few occasions where they are a little poor – especially evident in the film’s finale. For all his exciting filming style, Coogler’s shot choices occasionally jar with the uninspiring and lifeless CGI. Some of the landscapes also feel like a brochure for Disney’s upcoming The Lion King live-action remake.
I think it’s time to talk about film politics, because as much as Black Panther is a great addition to the MCU and a fine solo movie in itself, the legacy it will leave on the industry will be absolutely huge. With a majority black cast, strong female characters and a black director, it’s progressive and incredibly brave in its choices.
Any less of a story, director or cast wouldn’t have made it work and despite some poor CGI and slight pacing issues at the start, Black Panther is one of the best solo Marvel movies in years. Bring on Infinity War.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/15/black-panther-review-is-the-mcu-all-out-of-surprises/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Devil Wears Prada (2006) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I was watching The Devil Wears Prada the other day on ITV2 and forgot just how brilliant a film it is, it really did exceed expectations back then in 2006 and even now in 2011. Here’s the review I wrote all those years ago. Enjoy!
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
Lee (2222 KP) rated Weathering with You (2019) in Movies
Jan 31, 2020
Weathering With You is another beautifully creative romantic fantasy from director Makoto Shinkai, who was responsible for 2016 hit, Your Name. I only recently watched Your Name, and to say that it blew me away would be an understatement - it's a movie I still think about to this day. So, I headed into Weathering With You, perhaps a little unfairly, with some pretty high expectations. Consequently, I came away a little disappointed. But that's not to say that this isn't a great movie.
As with Your Name, one of the core themes behind Weathering With You is the pursuit of true love and it begins by introducing our teen protagonists before they've had a chance to meet. In rain-soaked Tokyo, Hina is attracted to a beam of sunlight that is cutting through the clouds across town, and she rushes off to try and get a closer look. Running up flights of stairs to a building rooftop, she comes across a simple shrine at the spot where the sunlight hits the Earth. Praying hard, she steps slowly through the shrine gate and the rain stops. We then see Hina falling through the sky, observing beautiful, magical weather all around her.
Hodaka is a 16 year old runaway, traveling by ferry boat to Tokyo. While standing out on deck during a powerful storm, flooding almost sends him overboard, but he is rescued by Mr Suga, a magazine publisher who ends up giving him his business card. After arriving in Tokyo and struggling to find work, Hodaka eventually calls upon Mr Suga, who gives him a job. The heavy rain that almost cost Hodaka his life has been persisting for some time now, despite being the middle of summer, and long range forecasts are predicting no real change for the foreseeable future. Storms are also leaving behind fish-like objects and a strange jelly substance, which is leaving experts baffled.
Hodaka first encounters Hina in the McDonalds where she is working, then later on Hodaka rescues Hina from what he believes to be a dangerous situation and the pair find themselves becoming friends. Through his reporting work at the magazine run by Mr Suga, Hodaka had been investigating the mythical "Weather Maidens", and he discovers that Hina is one of them, with the ability to bring about sunshine through prayer. With Hina and Hodaka both in desperate need of money, they go into business together, taking requests online from people wanting rain-free occasions, such as family picnics or weddings and earning Hina the name "Sunshine Girl". The power of a weather maiden comes at a cost though, as they eventually become a human sacrifice to the skies, with each use of their power bringing that moment one step closer.
The larger premise of Weathering With You is obviously climate change - how messing with nature always comes at a cost and how children have real power to influence change. Visually, the movie is simply stunning, and animated rainfall has never looked so beautiful. It's also peppered with a rather distracting and cheesy J-Pop score, made all the worse if you try and follow the on-screen lyrics, which obviously do not have the same impact when translated literally. Sadly, there are far too many plot threads presented throughout without any clarity or resolution and overall the whole thing just felt too long. Admittedly, it was a pretty high bar set by Your Name, but unfortunately Weathering With You doesn't have the emotional weight to meet that, with a narrative that isn't as complex or as engaging.
As with Your Name, one of the core themes behind Weathering With You is the pursuit of true love and it begins by introducing our teen protagonists before they've had a chance to meet. In rain-soaked Tokyo, Hina is attracted to a beam of sunlight that is cutting through the clouds across town, and she rushes off to try and get a closer look. Running up flights of stairs to a building rooftop, she comes across a simple shrine at the spot where the sunlight hits the Earth. Praying hard, she steps slowly through the shrine gate and the rain stops. We then see Hina falling through the sky, observing beautiful, magical weather all around her.
Hodaka is a 16 year old runaway, traveling by ferry boat to Tokyo. While standing out on deck during a powerful storm, flooding almost sends him overboard, but he is rescued by Mr Suga, a magazine publisher who ends up giving him his business card. After arriving in Tokyo and struggling to find work, Hodaka eventually calls upon Mr Suga, who gives him a job. The heavy rain that almost cost Hodaka his life has been persisting for some time now, despite being the middle of summer, and long range forecasts are predicting no real change for the foreseeable future. Storms are also leaving behind fish-like objects and a strange jelly substance, which is leaving experts baffled.
Hodaka first encounters Hina in the McDonalds where she is working, then later on Hodaka rescues Hina from what he believes to be a dangerous situation and the pair find themselves becoming friends. Through his reporting work at the magazine run by Mr Suga, Hodaka had been investigating the mythical "Weather Maidens", and he discovers that Hina is one of them, with the ability to bring about sunshine through prayer. With Hina and Hodaka both in desperate need of money, they go into business together, taking requests online from people wanting rain-free occasions, such as family picnics or weddings and earning Hina the name "Sunshine Girl". The power of a weather maiden comes at a cost though, as they eventually become a human sacrifice to the skies, with each use of their power bringing that moment one step closer.
The larger premise of Weathering With You is obviously climate change - how messing with nature always comes at a cost and how children have real power to influence change. Visually, the movie is simply stunning, and animated rainfall has never looked so beautiful. It's also peppered with a rather distracting and cheesy J-Pop score, made all the worse if you try and follow the on-screen lyrics, which obviously do not have the same impact when translated literally. Sadly, there are far too many plot threads presented throughout without any clarity or resolution and overall the whole thing just felt too long. Admittedly, it was a pretty high bar set by Your Name, but unfortunately Weathering With You doesn't have the emotional weight to meet that, with a narrative that isn't as complex or as engaging.