Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
An animated masterpiece? I should Coco!
I had no great expectations of this film. In fact, I honestly went to see it solely because – with the lazy multiplex habit of milking films like Jedi, Jumanji and (God help us) Pitch Perfect 3 – this was the only film at my local cinemas that I hadn’t seen. But wow… just wow!
For this is a masterpiece, and with the Oscar nominations released yesterday, it almost seems a crime that it wasn’t included in the Best Picture list (it must surely follow its Golden Globes win and snatch the Best Animated film category… although I admit that “Loving Vincent” clearly looks like it took a lot more work!).
Miguel (voiced by Anthony Gonzalez) lives in the quaint Mexican village of Santa Cecilia with his extended shoe-making family, including his grandmother Abuelita (Renée Victor) and his wizened old great-grandmother Coco (Ana Ofelia Murguía, via a brilliant piece of animation). Coco was a child from a broken home, with music being the cause of all the trouble, and this has led to a multi-generational ban that Abuelita polices with fierce passion. Unfortunately, Miguel “has the music in him”, idolising the – now deceased – singing sensation and matinee idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt, “Doctor Strange“). Desperate to perform in the Piazza talent contest, held during the evening of the “Day of the Dead” festival, Miguel takes destiny into his own hands…. which might prove fatal as he is dragged, alive and kicking, into the ‘land of the dead’.
The film is a thing of beauty. Some of the scenes: notably the candlelit graveyard, the “petal bridge” and the first sight of the land of the dead are done with such majesty and art that they take your breath away. Literally jaw dropping! (Try to make sure you see it on the big screen). So there are similarities here with “Blade Runner 2049” which also had images that could easily grace the walls of any art gallery in the world.
Where the film deviates from “Blade Runner” though is the original story by Lee Unkrich (who also directs), Adrian Molina (who co-directs), Jason Katz and Matthew Aldrich. Whereas the sci-fi reboot was a bit flaccid, story-wise, Coco develops in a surprisingly non-linear way. The story you think you are on suddenly does unexpected switchbacks and gets very deep indeed.
Deep? But this is a kids film right? Well, no, not really. Sure it has a lot of fun skeleton action, in the style of the re-constituting Olaf from “Frozen”, and a cute but mangy dog with a ridiculously long tongue. But the themes exposed here are FAR from childish. They encompass family, ambition, work/life balance, death and remembrance in such a fashion that parents exposing the film to young kids (I would think, up to 7 or 8 years old) should be ready with sensitive answers to “Mummy/Daddy, why…” questions so as to avoid significant anxiety and nightmares. The relationship between Miguel and his grandmother Abuelita, switching from violent outbursts to sudden loving hugs, might – I think – also confuse and disturb young children. Its UK certificate is “PG”, not “U”, for good reason.
So be prepared to cry. If you are anything like me, there will be a point in this film where you are desperately trying to recall the faces and voices of all of those people in your life that you have lost over the years. And some of the final jolts in this film will leave you almost as drained (almost!) as the start of “Up”.
As befits the subject matter there is a great score, with a mariachi feel, by Michael Giacchino, including a nice rendition of “When You Wish Upon A Star” over the Disney castle production logo. And there are some great songs, including the pivotal “Remember Me” which is now Oscar nominated.
Passport control at Heathrow was never like this.
Watch out for some nice cameo voice performances as well: Cheech Marin (from Cheech and Chong) plays the ‘border control’ officer, and Pixar regular John Ratzenberger (Hamm in “Toy Story”) turns up again playing Juan Ortodoncia, a character whose dentist fondly remembers him (LOL)!
With John Lasseter recently dragged into the #metoo scandal, and taking 6 months off to ponder on his “missteps”, one hopes this will not knock Pixar off its track too much. For with this evidence the studio shouldn’t keep trying to milk existing “Incredibles” and “Toy Story” franchises, but come up with more original entertainments like this. Because, for me, this rises into my top-three favourite Pixar films of all time (along with Toy Story and Wall-E).
For this is a masterpiece, and with the Oscar nominations released yesterday, it almost seems a crime that it wasn’t included in the Best Picture list (it must surely follow its Golden Globes win and snatch the Best Animated film category… although I admit that “Loving Vincent” clearly looks like it took a lot more work!).
Miguel (voiced by Anthony Gonzalez) lives in the quaint Mexican village of Santa Cecilia with his extended shoe-making family, including his grandmother Abuelita (Renée Victor) and his wizened old great-grandmother Coco (Ana Ofelia Murguía, via a brilliant piece of animation). Coco was a child from a broken home, with music being the cause of all the trouble, and this has led to a multi-generational ban that Abuelita polices with fierce passion. Unfortunately, Miguel “has the music in him”, idolising the – now deceased – singing sensation and matinee idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt, “Doctor Strange“). Desperate to perform in the Piazza talent contest, held during the evening of the “Day of the Dead” festival, Miguel takes destiny into his own hands…. which might prove fatal as he is dragged, alive and kicking, into the ‘land of the dead’.
The film is a thing of beauty. Some of the scenes: notably the candlelit graveyard, the “petal bridge” and the first sight of the land of the dead are done with such majesty and art that they take your breath away. Literally jaw dropping! (Try to make sure you see it on the big screen). So there are similarities here with “Blade Runner 2049” which also had images that could easily grace the walls of any art gallery in the world.
Where the film deviates from “Blade Runner” though is the original story by Lee Unkrich (who also directs), Adrian Molina (who co-directs), Jason Katz and Matthew Aldrich. Whereas the sci-fi reboot was a bit flaccid, story-wise, Coco develops in a surprisingly non-linear way. The story you think you are on suddenly does unexpected switchbacks and gets very deep indeed.
Deep? But this is a kids film right? Well, no, not really. Sure it has a lot of fun skeleton action, in the style of the re-constituting Olaf from “Frozen”, and a cute but mangy dog with a ridiculously long tongue. But the themes exposed here are FAR from childish. They encompass family, ambition, work/life balance, death and remembrance in such a fashion that parents exposing the film to young kids (I would think, up to 7 or 8 years old) should be ready with sensitive answers to “Mummy/Daddy, why…” questions so as to avoid significant anxiety and nightmares. The relationship between Miguel and his grandmother Abuelita, switching from violent outbursts to sudden loving hugs, might – I think – also confuse and disturb young children. Its UK certificate is “PG”, not “U”, for good reason.
So be prepared to cry. If you are anything like me, there will be a point in this film where you are desperately trying to recall the faces and voices of all of those people in your life that you have lost over the years. And some of the final jolts in this film will leave you almost as drained (almost!) as the start of “Up”.
As befits the subject matter there is a great score, with a mariachi feel, by Michael Giacchino, including a nice rendition of “When You Wish Upon A Star” over the Disney castle production logo. And there are some great songs, including the pivotal “Remember Me” which is now Oscar nominated.
Passport control at Heathrow was never like this.
Watch out for some nice cameo voice performances as well: Cheech Marin (from Cheech and Chong) plays the ‘border control’ officer, and Pixar regular John Ratzenberger (Hamm in “Toy Story”) turns up again playing Juan Ortodoncia, a character whose dentist fondly remembers him (LOL)!
With John Lasseter recently dragged into the #metoo scandal, and taking 6 months off to ponder on his “missteps”, one hopes this will not knock Pixar off its track too much. For with this evidence the studio shouldn’t keep trying to milk existing “Incredibles” and “Toy Story” franchises, but come up with more original entertainments like this. Because, for me, this rises into my top-three favourite Pixar films of all time (along with Toy Story and Wall-E).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A True successor to the original
Halloween 1978 and little-known director John Carpenter terrifies thousands of impressionable horror fans with the introduction of ‘The Shape’. Jamie Lee Curtis becomes the new ‘scream queen’ and all is well in the world of the slasher genre.
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
It’s been 40 years since Laurie Strode survived a vicious attack from crazed killer Michael Myers on Halloween night. Locked up in an institution, Myers manages to escape when his bus transfer goes horribly wrong. Laurie now faces a terrifying showdown when the masked madman returns to Haddonfield. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
Fast-forward to 2009 and Rob Zombie directs the sequel to his reasonably successful remake of Halloween, but it was poorly received by critics and audiences alike. Why? Well Zombie’s grungy, rock-anthem vibe didn’t really sit too well with Michael Myers and the result was a distasteful and messy outing that set the franchise back nearly 10 years.
Of course, in between 1978 and 2009, the series was ripped apart, put back together again until it was a shadow of its former self. Anyone remember Busta Rhymes doing a vague impression of a karate master in Halloween: Resurrection? Best forget about that.
Nevertheless, director David Gordon Green, a lifetime fan of Carpenter’s iconic original is in the chair to helm a direct sequel to the 1978 classic. That’s right, it forgoes every single film apart from the first. But is it a worthy sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time?
It’s been 40 years since Laurie Strode survived a vicious attack from crazed killer Michael Myers on Halloween night. Locked up in an institution, Myers manages to escape when his bus transfer goes horribly wrong. Laurie now faces a terrifying showdown when the masked madman returns to Haddonfield. But this time, she’s ready for him.
Having Jamie Lee Curtis and John Carpenter back for this instalment is already a coup for Gordon Green. Clearly, they thought enough of the material that he and co-writer Danny McBride had produced to give one more shot at crafting a properly deserved sequel. And it works very well, so well in fact that we have, barring the original, the best Halloween movie to date.
Jamie Lee Curtis is absolutely fabulous as a world-weary Laurie Strode. Traumatised by the events of 40 years ago, she holds herself up in a cabin on the outskirts of Haddonfield, flanked by floodlights and CCTV cameras. The script does a very good job at showing how massive events can destroy an individual’s life and Curtis’ understated performance is a highlight here.
Judy Greer gets a nicely fleshed out role as Karen, Laurie’s daughter. She’s an incredibly talented actress and it’s a world away from the one-dimensional characters she’s been given to play in blockbusters like Jurassic World. The great thing about this film is that each of the main characters feels real. There’s no cheap sex scenes, the kills are well-placed and the dialogue is superbly written – you actually believe these are real people, rather than characters in a movie.
While the body count is high, Halloween doesn’t rely on the murders to progress the story forward. This is very much Laurie’s film as opposed to Michael’s and it works very well. There’s some nice juxtaposition as shots that would have involved Michael in the original, choose to put Laurie front and centre here. Halloween features some tasteful references to the original as well as its less-well received sequels. They’re not immediately obvious for those not too familiar with the series, but die-hards will enjoy seeing those homages pop up every now and then.
Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it
The film starts relatively slowly with a not quite successful side-plot involving two investigative journalists, but once Michael Myers gets his mask back, the film rarely lets up until the end. Populated by enough kills and scares to keep the audience happy, this is a Halloween movie that doesn’t rely too much on jump scares. There’s a few, but they’re nicely filmed which helps lift them above the mundane.
To look at, this is a film that is head and shoulders above anything else in the genre. Gordon Green uses incredibly fluid camera techniques that almost mimic those of the original. In one extended sequence, Myers moves in and out of shot as the camera follows him from house to house, selecting his next victim. With no cuts in between, it’s a stunning scene to watch and very effective.
Thankfully, the writing duo has decided to pass on giving Michael anything resembling a back story. The embodiment of ‘pure evil’ as Samuel Loomis once put it, Myers needn’t have any motives – and that’s what makes him so terrifying. In fact, his first kill here reaffirms his evil characteristics and it’s clear that David Gordon Green and Danny McBride were aiming for this take on the character.
Then there’s the score. John Carpenter has returned to craft new music for this instalment and it is by far the best score in the series, possibly even better than the original. That haunting Halloween theme tune is back, but upgraded with guitar riffs and electronic percussion. It’s a fabulous update that works perfectly with the modern characters and an older Michael.
While it’s true that the film isn’t out-and-out scary, the finale is exquisite as Laurie and Michael come face-to-face once again. Only the abrupt ending and forgetting of some key characters lets it down. After all, what’s the point in caring about a character and never learning of their fate?
Overall, Halloween is a resounding success. It takes what audiences loved about the original and updates them in a sequel that, while not being wholly original, respects what came before it. While this is sure to make bucket loads at the box-office, it feels like it was crafted with care by a writing team and director that absolutely adores the series. It’s a must watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/20/halloween-2018-review-a-true-successor-to-the-original/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Wicker Man (1973) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Come. It is time to keep your appointment with the Wicker Man.
Though we never even lay eyes on it until the final few moments of the film, the Wicker Man, both as pagan image and classic horror flick, has become an icon of the genre.
But if you are expecting some dimly lit, slow burn slasher movie, then you will be sorely disappointed. The Wicker Man spends most of its runtime, which varies from its various versions, Theatrical, Director’s and Final Cuts, providing us with a pretty decent, if not disturbing insight into paganism.
Or more over, Paganism verses Christianity. Both spiritual, both magical, yet one is fun and the other is boring. The virgin sacrifice by the sexually liberated heathens is played out brilliantly.
The beauty here is that the final twist is so well conceived and executed throughout the entire film that even though most of us know the ending whether we have seen the film or not, it is not spoiled by that foreknowledge.
It is a kin to the previously released Planet Of The Apes (1968) or the much later Sixth Sense (1999). Both spin out complex genre tales which culminate in “that ending”. But in this case, Edward Woodward delivers a chilling performance in the finale, as he is taken to his death, locked inside the burning Wicker Man to be sacrificed in order to restore the poor harvest of the previous year.
“Don’t you see that killing me is not going to bring back your apples?”
But Woodward’s character is a devout Christian and he has only his faith and a dogged view of the world to aide him. Unable to accept the seemingly free spirited community in which his finds himself, one where sex is commonplace as he himself is still a virgin.
On the other hand there is Lord Summerisle, Christopher Lee, who steals the show as per usual as the charismatic leader of the this pagan community and the descendant of a lord who routed Christianity from the Highland Island a century before.
But whilst on the surface it may seem like a rather academic subject, the film is a trippy 1970’s sexploitation movie in many ways. Some of the sex and violence fits in well with plot but other moments, such as the nude dance by Britt Ekland, though actually doubled by Lorraine Peters is a prime example of a needless, if not memorable sequence.
Overall, The Wicker Man is low budget British movie of the 1970’s and one which has endured to earn it’s classic status, by meeting the main criteria of being smart, engaging and visually compelling, along with several standout performances throughout.
But if you are expecting some dimly lit, slow burn slasher movie, then you will be sorely disappointed. The Wicker Man spends most of its runtime, which varies from its various versions, Theatrical, Director’s and Final Cuts, providing us with a pretty decent, if not disturbing insight into paganism.
Or more over, Paganism verses Christianity. Both spiritual, both magical, yet one is fun and the other is boring. The virgin sacrifice by the sexually liberated heathens is played out brilliantly.
The beauty here is that the final twist is so well conceived and executed throughout the entire film that even though most of us know the ending whether we have seen the film or not, it is not spoiled by that foreknowledge.
It is a kin to the previously released Planet Of The Apes (1968) or the much later Sixth Sense (1999). Both spin out complex genre tales which culminate in “that ending”. But in this case, Edward Woodward delivers a chilling performance in the finale, as he is taken to his death, locked inside the burning Wicker Man to be sacrificed in order to restore the poor harvest of the previous year.
“Don’t you see that killing me is not going to bring back your apples?”
But Woodward’s character is a devout Christian and he has only his faith and a dogged view of the world to aide him. Unable to accept the seemingly free spirited community in which his finds himself, one where sex is commonplace as he himself is still a virgin.
On the other hand there is Lord Summerisle, Christopher Lee, who steals the show as per usual as the charismatic leader of the this pagan community and the descendant of a lord who routed Christianity from the Highland Island a century before.
But whilst on the surface it may seem like a rather academic subject, the film is a trippy 1970’s sexploitation movie in many ways. Some of the sex and violence fits in well with plot but other moments, such as the nude dance by Britt Ekland, though actually doubled by Lorraine Peters is a prime example of a needless, if not memorable sequence.
Overall, The Wicker Man is low budget British movie of the 1970’s and one which has endured to earn it’s classic status, by meeting the main criteria of being smart, engaging and visually compelling, along with several standout performances throughout.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Teen Titans Go! To the Movies (2018) in Movies
Aug 5, 2018
Hilarious (4 more)
Some great references
Surprise comedic cameo
Nice nods to the tv show
Credits scene
I wasn't sure what was even happening sometimes (1 more)
Seems a little extreme in places.
What did I just watch?
Okay so I haven't reviewed the tv show cos I haven't watched it in a while but I do love 'Teen Titans Go!' and many people ask me why?
Yes I was a fan of the original animated series and I'm a fan of Young Justice and they're both clearly superior animated shows, but it's nice to see something fun and childish starting your favourite characters now and then and the creators of TTG! Are DC fans as well so there's always some insanely great nods to other DC content from comics, to tv shows to Movies and more. So what's not to love?
This movie was hilarious because it's just so insane that you just have to think that the creators were high as hell when making this film. But it's easy to understand for children and has many great references to DC for the adult fans in the audience. A great soundtrack of silly songs and a great voice cast for the characters such as Will Arnett as Deathstroke and Nicholas Cage as Superman (an obvious reference to the Tim Burton Superman film that never got made that would have started Nicholas Cage as the Man of Steel himself). The humour was nothing really new compared to the tv show but they expanded upon it and seemed to drag some of the jokes out longer with some great comedic timing and a sense of "what the hell is going on!?"
Issues I had with the film was that in some parts it seemed to try a little too hard to make you laugh and it didn't always work. They tried to put in some serious messages as they do in the show but this seemed to slow down the pace all of a sudden so it wasn't smooth with the flow of the film and it just felt like it came to a sudden halt on the shenanigans and humour of the film.
The plot was pretty much obvious from the get go, but that's probably just the view as an adult. I'm sure to kids it might seem like a real movie.
But back to the good points. There was some great references to none DC content, such as the Stan Lee cameo, Starfire pointing at the Warner Brothers water tower and stating "That's where the animaniacs live" and even a reference to the Lion King which was brilliant.
Overall this was a really enjoyable movie with some flaws but I think the overall impression outweighs them, and the soundtrack is incredible ?
Yes I was a fan of the original animated series and I'm a fan of Young Justice and they're both clearly superior animated shows, but it's nice to see something fun and childish starting your favourite characters now and then and the creators of TTG! Are DC fans as well so there's always some insanely great nods to other DC content from comics, to tv shows to Movies and more. So what's not to love?
This movie was hilarious because it's just so insane that you just have to think that the creators were high as hell when making this film. But it's easy to understand for children and has many great references to DC for the adult fans in the audience. A great soundtrack of silly songs and a great voice cast for the characters such as Will Arnett as Deathstroke and Nicholas Cage as Superman (an obvious reference to the Tim Burton Superman film that never got made that would have started Nicholas Cage as the Man of Steel himself). The humour was nothing really new compared to the tv show but they expanded upon it and seemed to drag some of the jokes out longer with some great comedic timing and a sense of "what the hell is going on!?"
Issues I had with the film was that in some parts it seemed to try a little too hard to make you laugh and it didn't always work. They tried to put in some serious messages as they do in the show but this seemed to slow down the pace all of a sudden so it wasn't smooth with the flow of the film and it just felt like it came to a sudden halt on the shenanigans and humour of the film.
The plot was pretty much obvious from the get go, but that's probably just the view as an adult. I'm sure to kids it might seem like a real movie.
But back to the good points. There was some great references to none DC content, such as the Stan Lee cameo, Starfire pointing at the Warner Brothers water tower and stating "That's where the animaniacs live" and even a reference to the Lion King which was brilliant.
Overall this was a really enjoyable movie with some flaws but I think the overall impression outweighs them, and the soundtrack is incredible ?
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Hoo boy. If you are a fan of “whodunit” movies, you are in for a real treat. Rian Johnson directs Knives Out, a film that that brings a great modern twist to the whodunit genre with an amazing all star cast.
Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) is an acclaimed mystery murder novelist who has committed suicide on the night of his birthday party. At least it seems so at first. A mysterious entity has hired the last of the southern gentlemen detectives, Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig), to aid Lieutenant Elliot (LaKeith Stanfield) and Trooper Wagner (Noah Segan) in their investigation into what appeared to be a suicide. But soon, the stories of the party-goers starts to crumble, and you see there is something more afoot. Someone killed Mr. Thrombey, but who could it be? The list of suspects is long, and all are close to the deceased in their own way: his daughter, Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis); her husband, Richard Drysdale (Don Johnson); or their son, Ransom Drysdale (Chris Evans)? Could it possibly be his son, Walt Thrombey (Michael Shannon); his wife Donna (Riki Lindhome); or their son Jacob (Jaeden Martell). Maybe it was Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette), his widowed daughter-in-law; or her daughter Meg (Katherine Langford). Or it could be Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), Mr. Thrombey’s nurse. It’s a large list of suspects who attended the party that night, and it could be any of them.
I am a huge fan of this genre of movie, and I will say that Knives Out, while predictable at some points, did have me guessing, and second-guessing, all the way to the very end. I can’t really give you a lot more without spoiling some major plot points, but the film is outstanding. It was a little slow to start, but I believe there was a purpose behind this. Each actor playing a part that is not their typical role (for the most part) ended up being the real selling point. They all did fantastic, even though it did take a little getting used to seeing James Bond with a southern accent, and Captain America as a bona fide jackass.
The movie gave us a perfect blend of humor, mystery, and even a little action in order to give us what could be a modern masterpiece in the genre. Flay me all you want if you disagree, but it’s been a while since a really good whodunit has been put out that wasn’t a period piece. There were some flaws, but the movie made you connect to these characters, as zany as they seemed. Definitely a good film to check out on a date night.
Harlan Thrombey (Christopher Plummer) is an acclaimed mystery murder novelist who has committed suicide on the night of his birthday party. At least it seems so at first. A mysterious entity has hired the last of the southern gentlemen detectives, Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig), to aid Lieutenant Elliot (LaKeith Stanfield) and Trooper Wagner (Noah Segan) in their investigation into what appeared to be a suicide. But soon, the stories of the party-goers starts to crumble, and you see there is something more afoot. Someone killed Mr. Thrombey, but who could it be? The list of suspects is long, and all are close to the deceased in their own way: his daughter, Linda Drysdale (Jamie Lee Curtis); her husband, Richard Drysdale (Don Johnson); or their son, Ransom Drysdale (Chris Evans)? Could it possibly be his son, Walt Thrombey (Michael Shannon); his wife Donna (Riki Lindhome); or their son Jacob (Jaeden Martell). Maybe it was Joni Thrombey (Toni Collette), his widowed daughter-in-law; or her daughter Meg (Katherine Langford). Or it could be Marta Cabrera (Ana de Armas), Mr. Thrombey’s nurse. It’s a large list of suspects who attended the party that night, and it could be any of them.
I am a huge fan of this genre of movie, and I will say that Knives Out, while predictable at some points, did have me guessing, and second-guessing, all the way to the very end. I can’t really give you a lot more without spoiling some major plot points, but the film is outstanding. It was a little slow to start, but I believe there was a purpose behind this. Each actor playing a part that is not their typical role (for the most part) ended up being the real selling point. They all did fantastic, even though it did take a little getting used to seeing James Bond with a southern accent, and Captain America as a bona fide jackass.
The movie gave us a perfect blend of humor, mystery, and even a little action in order to give us what could be a modern masterpiece in the genre. Flay me all you want if you disagree, but it’s been a while since a really good whodunit has been put out that wasn’t a period piece. There were some flaws, but the movie made you connect to these characters, as zany as they seemed. Definitely a good film to check out on a date night.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
My first experience in IMAX was at the IMAX theater at the Grand Canyon. This was before IMAX theaters could easily be found within easy driving distance in most large cities. The movie, which interestingly still is showing today from those early years took viewers on the magical journey through the Grand Canyon. Throwing in a bit of history, with incredible visages, viewers could experience the canyon without ever hiking within its depths. It may seem odd to compare a big budget title like Ad Astra written and directed by James Gray (The Immigrant / The Lost City of Z) to a short thirty-minute experience film about the Grand Canyon, but both are equally awe inspiring and beautiful if experienced in the same way.
Ad Astra features Brad Pitt as Astronaut Roy McBride, a film that takes place in the not so distant future where the moon has become a commercialized tourist destination. A place where outside the safe tourist zones corporations fight for control of resources, and convoys are regularly ransacked by pirates looking to make a quick buck off the wares they are able to obtain. Mars has become a staging location for deep exploration ships hoping to discover if intelligent life exists outside our solar system.
Strange power surges begin to emanate deep within the galaxy, threatening to destroy everything in their path (Earth not excluded) and the top scientist are brought together to identify the threat and propose a theory to stop it. Roy McBride after suffering a near fatal fall from aboard a space station is brought into a top-secret meeting to discuss these surges. It is in this meeting that Roy is informed that the surges appear to be manifesting near Neptune and even more interestingly they are identified as anti-matter surges that are being generated from a ship that Roy’s father Clifford (Tommy Lee Jones) was in charge of nearly 29 years ago. The mission was a search for extra terrestrial life that Clifford was overseeing and presumed dead after Earth had lost contact with his ship. Roy must put his personal feelings aside regarding his father and must travel to the outer reaches of our solar system to put a stop to the surges, in any way possible.
Ad Astra is an incredible achievement in cinematography. The visions of the moon, mars and the numerous rockets taken to get there are spectacular. Much like the Grand Canyon film I spoke of earlier, in IMAX Ad Astra gives you a front row seat exploring the solar system as we know it. It takes a realistic approach while not bogging the viewers in all the technical details that would be necessary to achieve this flight. You would be doing yourself a disservice to see this film on any but the largest of movie screens. While it might be an acceptable experience in a normal theater, much of the grandiose vistas and beautiful sets would be wasted. This is not a movie to wait for on Netflix if you have any interest in seeing it at all.
From a story perspective, there isn’t a whole lot to tell. Brad Pitt brings his amazing acting abilities to a film that features more inner dialogue to himself, then to others on the screen. It is reminiscent to the original Dune movie from the 80s combined with 2001: A space odyssey. For a movie that literally is about a voyage to deep space, there are some scenes sprinkled throughout that provide some action and even a bit of suspense. Supporting characters such as Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland provide outstanding performances, even if their screen time is extremely limited. Liv Tyler once again reprises a role similar to the one from Armageddon as the reluctant wife of a man who is tasked with saving the world.
Ad Astra is a cinematic experience, the story alone is passable if not particularly quick moving and at time rarely engaging. However, when you combine this with the technological wizardry used to bring the Solar System to life it makes for an adventure that certainly lives up to the hype and will delight your visual senses. If you’ve ever dreamed of what it would be like to live on the moon or adventure into the stars, then Ad Astra might just be the closest we ever get in our lifetime. It’s beautiful, deadly and overall an achievement to behold, just make sure you see it on the biggest screen you can.
4 out of 5 stars
Ad Astra features Brad Pitt as Astronaut Roy McBride, a film that takes place in the not so distant future where the moon has become a commercialized tourist destination. A place where outside the safe tourist zones corporations fight for control of resources, and convoys are regularly ransacked by pirates looking to make a quick buck off the wares they are able to obtain. Mars has become a staging location for deep exploration ships hoping to discover if intelligent life exists outside our solar system.
Strange power surges begin to emanate deep within the galaxy, threatening to destroy everything in their path (Earth not excluded) and the top scientist are brought together to identify the threat and propose a theory to stop it. Roy McBride after suffering a near fatal fall from aboard a space station is brought into a top-secret meeting to discuss these surges. It is in this meeting that Roy is informed that the surges appear to be manifesting near Neptune and even more interestingly they are identified as anti-matter surges that are being generated from a ship that Roy’s father Clifford (Tommy Lee Jones) was in charge of nearly 29 years ago. The mission was a search for extra terrestrial life that Clifford was overseeing and presumed dead after Earth had lost contact with his ship. Roy must put his personal feelings aside regarding his father and must travel to the outer reaches of our solar system to put a stop to the surges, in any way possible.
Ad Astra is an incredible achievement in cinematography. The visions of the moon, mars and the numerous rockets taken to get there are spectacular. Much like the Grand Canyon film I spoke of earlier, in IMAX Ad Astra gives you a front row seat exploring the solar system as we know it. It takes a realistic approach while not bogging the viewers in all the technical details that would be necessary to achieve this flight. You would be doing yourself a disservice to see this film on any but the largest of movie screens. While it might be an acceptable experience in a normal theater, much of the grandiose vistas and beautiful sets would be wasted. This is not a movie to wait for on Netflix if you have any interest in seeing it at all.
From a story perspective, there isn’t a whole lot to tell. Brad Pitt brings his amazing acting abilities to a film that features more inner dialogue to himself, then to others on the screen. It is reminiscent to the original Dune movie from the 80s combined with 2001: A space odyssey. For a movie that literally is about a voyage to deep space, there are some scenes sprinkled throughout that provide some action and even a bit of suspense. Supporting characters such as Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland provide outstanding performances, even if their screen time is extremely limited. Liv Tyler once again reprises a role similar to the one from Armageddon as the reluctant wife of a man who is tasked with saving the world.
Ad Astra is a cinematic experience, the story alone is passable if not particularly quick moving and at time rarely engaging. However, when you combine this with the technological wizardry used to bring the Solar System to life it makes for an adventure that certainly lives up to the hype and will delight your visual senses. If you’ve ever dreamed of what it would be like to live on the moon or adventure into the stars, then Ad Astra might just be the closest we ever get in our lifetime. It’s beautiful, deadly and overall an achievement to behold, just make sure you see it on the biggest screen you can.
4 out of 5 stars
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Black Dynamite (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
After his brother is killed, Black Dynamite decides to take matters into his own hands. Just who is Black Dynamite? He's an action legend, a one-man army, and anyone who gets on his bad side is going to wind up dead. Other than struggling with trying to figure out who's responsible for his brother's death, Black Dynamite also has other matters to attend to. There's that new smack being distributed on the street that's even somehow reaching the orphans at the local orphanage and there's something screwy about that Anaconda malt liquor that just doesn't sit well with him. Black Dynamite will do whatever it takes to find out who killed his brother and clean up the streets even if it means going all the way to the Honky House.
Black Dynamite has quite a reputation as just about every article or review that mentioned the film gave it high praise. Is it possible for a film to be incredible while paying homage to the films that inspired it? Sure it is. Directors like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez make a living doing just that. With Black Dynamite, however, you may not know what to expect. Expect it to parody the blaxploitation films from the 70s, pay homage to classic kung fu films, have ridiculous dialogue, a storyline that hilariously doesn't make sense, and have a funky soundtrack with lyrics that are just as awesome as the rest of the film.
Michael Jai White is really the selling point of the film since he is Black Dynamite and you're with him the entire film. I hadn't seen much of White's work before this, but I'm definitely wanting to see more now. His fight scenes are top notch and from what I could tell, it looked like he did the majority of his own stunts. The word I've been hearing is that he's a fairly impressive actor overall, but has just never really picked the right roles and never really broke into the mainstream. Maybe after playing Gambol in The Dark Knight helped him out a bit because he definitely has a bright future as not only an action star, but an actor as well. Other than his superb martial arts work, White's comedic timing is also really important in a film like this and it really pays off. There's a scene where a boom mic is noticeably in the shot while Black Dynamite is giving a big speech. He draws attention to it by repeatedly glaring at the mic throughout the scene, but doesn't miss a beat of the dialogue. Ridiculous scenes like that were crucial in the overall enjoyment factor of the film.
The dialogue is laugh out loud funny at times. There's a scene where the CIA show up at Black Dynamite's house and Agent O'Leary says to Black Dynamite, "We heard about your brother's death and we don't want you running around turning the streets into rivers of blood." Black Dynamite responds with, "Then tell me who did it and I'll just leave a puddle." The storyline is just as absurd, as well. Other than the film missing scenes that were shown in the trailer and things not fully being resolved with Vincent "The Don" Rafelli, the scene where Black Dynamite and his crew figure out what Anaconda malt liquor's true purpose is is both hilariously long-winded and confusing.
Black Dynamite may not be for everyone, but it will be hilariously awesome for most who actually get to see it. The film somehow manages to blend comedy as absurd and ridiculous as films like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy or Zoolander and have hard hitting action scenes that are noticeably a tribute to classic Bruce Lee films. This blaxploitation parody comes highly recommended, can you dig it?
Black Dynamite has quite a reputation as just about every article or review that mentioned the film gave it high praise. Is it possible for a film to be incredible while paying homage to the films that inspired it? Sure it is. Directors like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez make a living doing just that. With Black Dynamite, however, you may not know what to expect. Expect it to parody the blaxploitation films from the 70s, pay homage to classic kung fu films, have ridiculous dialogue, a storyline that hilariously doesn't make sense, and have a funky soundtrack with lyrics that are just as awesome as the rest of the film.
Michael Jai White is really the selling point of the film since he is Black Dynamite and you're with him the entire film. I hadn't seen much of White's work before this, but I'm definitely wanting to see more now. His fight scenes are top notch and from what I could tell, it looked like he did the majority of his own stunts. The word I've been hearing is that he's a fairly impressive actor overall, but has just never really picked the right roles and never really broke into the mainstream. Maybe after playing Gambol in The Dark Knight helped him out a bit because he definitely has a bright future as not only an action star, but an actor as well. Other than his superb martial arts work, White's comedic timing is also really important in a film like this and it really pays off. There's a scene where a boom mic is noticeably in the shot while Black Dynamite is giving a big speech. He draws attention to it by repeatedly glaring at the mic throughout the scene, but doesn't miss a beat of the dialogue. Ridiculous scenes like that were crucial in the overall enjoyment factor of the film.
The dialogue is laugh out loud funny at times. There's a scene where the CIA show up at Black Dynamite's house and Agent O'Leary says to Black Dynamite, "We heard about your brother's death and we don't want you running around turning the streets into rivers of blood." Black Dynamite responds with, "Then tell me who did it and I'll just leave a puddle." The storyline is just as absurd, as well. Other than the film missing scenes that were shown in the trailer and things not fully being resolved with Vincent "The Don" Rafelli, the scene where Black Dynamite and his crew figure out what Anaconda malt liquor's true purpose is is both hilariously long-winded and confusing.
Black Dynamite may not be for everyone, but it will be hilariously awesome for most who actually get to see it. The film somehow manages to blend comedy as absurd and ridiculous as films like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy or Zoolander and have hard hitting action scenes that are noticeably a tribute to classic Bruce Lee films. This blaxploitation parody comes highly recommended, can you dig it?
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Teagan of Tomorrow (Legend of Rhyme, #3) in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
They may have defeated the evil sorcerer, but the twins have found themselves in even more trouble. <i>Teagan of Tomorrow</i> is the third book in Jaime Lee Mann’s<i> Legend of Rhyme</i> fantasy series for children. Previously Asher and Ariana have helped to banish a powerful, wicked man, however in the process have been transported to the year 2015 – more than a couple of centuries into the future. Back in Coraira the rulers and fairies are desperate to locate the twins, but before they get a chance a curse befalls them, putting them into a deep sleep and removing all magic from the realm.
This third installment introduces a new character that is key to the plot. Teagan is a twelve-year-old girl living in a foster family in 2015. Readers learn that her parents died when she was young, however it is not revealed how or whether this is relevant to future books in the series. Although she never meets them, after Asher and Ariana find themselves nearby, Teagan starts experiencing odd things that could only be explained as magic… if magic existed.
The story is quite amusing to begin with as Asher and Ariana not only find themselves in a world they no longer understand, they have crashed straight into a reenactment of their own lives. Since magic ceased to exist, Coraira and the twins have become a legend that most people regard as a children’s fairytale, which they like to act out as a way of attracting tourists. The way the twins react to their surroundings produces a humorous comparison between the past and the twenty-first century.
As the story progresses it becomes clear that Teagan is a descendant of the twin’s family, and is their key to returning home. If only it could be as easy as it sounds. Before Asher and Ariana get to meet their youngest family member, Teagan accidently gets herself transported into Coraira.
Being only one hundred pages, <i>Teagan of Tomorrow</i> does not have room to resolve this disastrous situation. Readers will have to wait for the next book to be published to find out if the twins ever make it back home, and discover what happens to Teagan.
As with the previous two books, <i>Teagan of Tomorrow</i> is written in a language suitable for older children to understand. The author has kept the story short and to the point, making it easy to follow. The downside to this is it lacks description with dozens of pages containing only dialogue. This makes it harder to appreciate the setting and unique magical concept that Mann has invented.
The risk with a series of books is in going too far with the storyline. Sometimes there is a point when the story should end, yet the author perseveres on. I worried that this would be the case with this series. Except for the twins going missing, things could easily have finished at the end of the second book. The introduction of Teagan in<i> Teagan of Tomorrow</i> however gives a whole new concept to the original fantasy narrative. Instead of the same characters using the same magic, to defeat the same types of evil, surrounded by the same types of mythical creatures, Teagan provides a contemporary observation on the already familiar setting. The way the author leaves events at the end of the book will make the reader yearn for the next story, thus making it a success.
They may have defeated the evil sorcerer, but the twins have found themselves in even more trouble. <i>Teagan of Tomorrow</i> is the third book in Jaime Lee Mann’s<i> Legend of Rhyme</i> fantasy series for children. Previously Asher and Ariana have helped to banish a powerful, wicked man, however in the process have been transported to the year 2015 – more than a couple of centuries into the future. Back in Coraira the rulers and fairies are desperate to locate the twins, but before they get a chance a curse befalls them, putting them into a deep sleep and removing all magic from the realm.
This third installment introduces a new character that is key to the plot. Teagan is a twelve-year-old girl living in a foster family in 2015. Readers learn that her parents died when she was young, however it is not revealed how or whether this is relevant to future books in the series. Although she never meets them, after Asher and Ariana find themselves nearby, Teagan starts experiencing odd things that could only be explained as magic… if magic existed.
The story is quite amusing to begin with as Asher and Ariana not only find themselves in a world they no longer understand, they have crashed straight into a reenactment of their own lives. Since magic ceased to exist, Coraira and the twins have become a legend that most people regard as a children’s fairytale, which they like to act out as a way of attracting tourists. The way the twins react to their surroundings produces a humorous comparison between the past and the twenty-first century.
As the story progresses it becomes clear that Teagan is a descendant of the twin’s family, and is their key to returning home. If only it could be as easy as it sounds. Before Asher and Ariana get to meet their youngest family member, Teagan accidently gets herself transported into Coraira.
Being only one hundred pages, <i>Teagan of Tomorrow</i> does not have room to resolve this disastrous situation. Readers will have to wait for the next book to be published to find out if the twins ever make it back home, and discover what happens to Teagan.
As with the previous two books, <i>Teagan of Tomorrow</i> is written in a language suitable for older children to understand. The author has kept the story short and to the point, making it easy to follow. The downside to this is it lacks description with dozens of pages containing only dialogue. This makes it harder to appreciate the setting and unique magical concept that Mann has invented.
The risk with a series of books is in going too far with the storyline. Sometimes there is a point when the story should end, yet the author perseveres on. I worried that this would be the case with this series. Except for the twins going missing, things could easily have finished at the end of the second book. The introduction of Teagan in<i> Teagan of Tomorrow</i> however gives a whole new concept to the original fantasy narrative. Instead of the same characters using the same magic, to defeat the same types of evil, surrounded by the same types of mythical creatures, Teagan provides a contemporary observation on the already familiar setting. The way the author leaves events at the end of the book will make the reader yearn for the next story, thus making it a success.