Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
At the end of the 1984 Democratic Primaries a relative unknown Senator from Colorado, Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman), concedes victory to Walter Mondale. But being the runner up to the Democratic Party Presidential nominee catapults Hart to the national stage. Fast forward to 1988 and Hart is the overwhelming front runner to be not only the Democratic nominee but most likely the next President of the United States. He is a progressive and has a knack for explaining politics so that everyone can understand. He’s well spoken, has popular policies, a clear message for the future and is a handsome man to boot. It seems like nothing can stand in his way. That is until three weeks into the primary elections reporters from the Miami Herald, Tom Fiedler (Steve Zissis) and Pete Murphy (Bill Burr), get wind of a story of Hart and a young woman from Miami spending time together at yacht party. Since Hart is very much married to his wife, Lee Hart (Vera Farmiga), they decide to investigate. They find out that the two may be meeting in Washington D.C. at Hart’s townhouse. They follow the young woman, Donna Rice (Sara Paxton), from Miami to D.C. There they take photos of the two together and print a story. The media blitz is on and the story explodes. Hart now faces one of the first personal political scandals. He must try and navigate a new media age to not see his political career slip away.
Even though this is a true story and some of you may already know the facts I will put the disclaimer of spoilers ahead. This is the story of Senator Hart and his fall from grace as a sure fire Presidential Nominee to out of politics in the blink of an eye, in one of the first “tabloid” political scandals. The Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Thank you for Smoking) directed film focuses heavily on the interaction between politicians and reporters. It shows, and touches on, how this relationship evolves/devolves so quickly. There are plenty of moments that you can tie into today’s media and how maybe this instance influenced how the media reported on the private lives of politicians.
Overall I thought the film was good. I thought that telling the story from the side of the media and the people on the campaign was really interesting. I just thought that it was not overly compelling. You can’t feel bad for Hart because it was his actions and how he handled the situation that led to the eventual result. Also yeah the media maybe went too far at some point but also you could see how the reporters were just trying to do their jobs. The film has a large ensemble cast. J.K Simmons, Molly Ephraim, Chris Coy, Alfred Molina, Kevin Pollak, Mamoudou Athie and the list goes on. They all do okay but really this is all about Jackman. His performance is outstanding. The story did drag a little at points but for a political drama it was not overboard. I think it could have been a little shorter.
To use a real story that had such a media spotlight on it was ambitious and I give the filmmakers credit for that. But you can see some of the limitation on screen. Not really a theater must see but definitely if this is a story you are not familiar with it is worth the watch. Again it draws a lot of parallels and makes a lot of nods to today’s media and political climate.
Even though this is a true story and some of you may already know the facts I will put the disclaimer of spoilers ahead. This is the story of Senator Hart and his fall from grace as a sure fire Presidential Nominee to out of politics in the blink of an eye, in one of the first “tabloid” political scandals. The Jason Reitman (Up in the Air, Thank you for Smoking) directed film focuses heavily on the interaction between politicians and reporters. It shows, and touches on, how this relationship evolves/devolves so quickly. There are plenty of moments that you can tie into today’s media and how maybe this instance influenced how the media reported on the private lives of politicians.
Overall I thought the film was good. I thought that telling the story from the side of the media and the people on the campaign was really interesting. I just thought that it was not overly compelling. You can’t feel bad for Hart because it was his actions and how he handled the situation that led to the eventual result. Also yeah the media maybe went too far at some point but also you could see how the reporters were just trying to do their jobs. The film has a large ensemble cast. J.K Simmons, Molly Ephraim, Chris Coy, Alfred Molina, Kevin Pollak, Mamoudou Athie and the list goes on. They all do okay but really this is all about Jackman. His performance is outstanding. The story did drag a little at points but for a political drama it was not overboard. I think it could have been a little shorter.
To use a real story that had such a media spotlight on it was ambitious and I give the filmmakers credit for that. But you can see some of the limitation on screen. Not really a theater must see but definitely if this is a story you are not familiar with it is worth the watch. Again it draws a lot of parallels and makes a lot of nods to today’s media and political climate.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
Ian Malcolm Should Have Left Them On the Island
Thoughts before watching The Lost World: Jurassic Park as a twelve-year-old in 1997: “Oh man, I can’t wait to check out all this dino action! Raptors for life!” Thoughts before watching The Lost World: Jurassic Park as a thirty-five-year-old in 2019: “Why the hell are they going back to the island? These people clearly have a death wish!” Yes, the sequel to one of the greatest movies ever made sees a return to the dinosaur madness as a special team led by Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm goes on a mission for Jurassic Park’s creator John Hammond (Richard Attenborough).
Acting: 10
Jeff Goldblum has a way of captivating any screen he’s on. He has charm, wit, and an erratic nature that’s absolutely hilarious. He has a strong cast backing him up with guys like Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore helping to run the show.
Beginning: 10
Strong start as we see there are still idiots out there that don’t know how to stay away from these islands. The movie is immediately entertaining while also letting you know it’s going to be a different kind of movie than the first. Definitely piqued my interest.
Characters: 6
One of my biggest issues with the entire movie. I’m honestly surprised I didn’t score it lower. For the most part, I hated these characters outside of Ian Malcolm. I almost wish he had left the rest of them to stew on the island by themselves. Julianne Moore’s character Sarah Harding was obnoxious and pretty annoying. Then again, I can say that for a lot of the characters including Malcolm’s daughter Kelly Curtis (Vanessa Lee Chester). At times, it really made it hard for me to enjoy the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The dino special effects were taken to new heights in this one. I particularly love the extra work they put into the velociraptors showing off their incredible jumping ability and rogue-like stealth. I also appreciated the multitude of dinos you get in this one as well from the stegosaurus down to the tiny compies. I can’t remember their names, but my particular favorite dino was the one with the bone head. His hard skull could crash through just about anything. I enjoyed watching it wreak havoc on a number of doors and people.
What bothered me just a bit was the choice of a darker color tone throughout the movie. It was almost as if they were trying to purposefully differentiate from the first by doing this. It takes some getting used to, but ultimately didn’t kill the movie for me.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 4
Pace: 8
Plot: 4
What a stupid story. Who in their right mind after hearing all the craziness that went down at the original park would ever go back to face off against these dinos? Rescue mission my ass, not this guy! Had they followed the book, I feel it would have been a lot more believable.
Resolution: 9
Overall: 77
Let’s be honest, no way this movie was going to match the first in any way. Jurassic Park set an amazing standard that is just hard to follow. However, I will say that, while not perfect, The Lost World: Jurassic Park does have its moments that make it a decent enough watch.
Acting: 10
Jeff Goldblum has a way of captivating any screen he’s on. He has charm, wit, and an erratic nature that’s absolutely hilarious. He has a strong cast backing him up with guys like Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore helping to run the show.
Beginning: 10
Strong start as we see there are still idiots out there that don’t know how to stay away from these islands. The movie is immediately entertaining while also letting you know it’s going to be a different kind of movie than the first. Definitely piqued my interest.
Characters: 6
One of my biggest issues with the entire movie. I’m honestly surprised I didn’t score it lower. For the most part, I hated these characters outside of Ian Malcolm. I almost wish he had left the rest of them to stew on the island by themselves. Julianne Moore’s character Sarah Harding was obnoxious and pretty annoying. Then again, I can say that for a lot of the characters including Malcolm’s daughter Kelly Curtis (Vanessa Lee Chester). At times, it really made it hard for me to enjoy the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The dino special effects were taken to new heights in this one. I particularly love the extra work they put into the velociraptors showing off their incredible jumping ability and rogue-like stealth. I also appreciated the multitude of dinos you get in this one as well from the stegosaurus down to the tiny compies. I can’t remember their names, but my particular favorite dino was the one with the bone head. His hard skull could crash through just about anything. I enjoyed watching it wreak havoc on a number of doors and people.
What bothered me just a bit was the choice of a darker color tone throughout the movie. It was almost as if they were trying to purposefully differentiate from the first by doing this. It takes some getting used to, but ultimately didn’t kill the movie for me.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 4
Pace: 8
Plot: 4
What a stupid story. Who in their right mind after hearing all the craziness that went down at the original park would ever go back to face off against these dinos? Rescue mission my ass, not this guy! Had they followed the book, I feel it would have been a lot more believable.
Resolution: 9
Overall: 77
Let’s be honest, no way this movie was going to match the first in any way. Jurassic Park set an amazing standard that is just hard to follow. However, I will say that, while not perfect, The Lost World: Jurassic Park does have its moments that make it a decent enough watch.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Pitch Perfect (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I have to admit, I am a sucker for movies with singing and dancing. And when there’s competition involved, even better! When I saw the trailer for Pitch Perfect, my first thought was it looked like “Bring It On” but for a capella groups. My second thought was, “Where do I line up?”
Sure, such movies are usually trite and predictable. But who cares? There’s singing and dancing! I don’t care that I’m expected to buy 27 year old Anna Kendrick as a rebellious, aspiring DJ named Beca, starting her freshman year at Barden College. She and Bella just graduated from high school in the Twilight series, so, sure, why not? Bribed by her dad with a promise to help her move to L.A. if she gave college a chance for one year, Becca considers what Barden has to offer. Unfortunately for her, the college’s “D.J. Club” is more about Semitic sign language than mixing beats.
Enter The Bellas, the college’s recently disgraced female a capella group lead by Aubrey (Anna Camp) and Chloe (Brittany Snow). Because of the uptight Aubrey’s shocking performance at a recent competition, they need to rebuild a group that can sing in saccharine-sweet, vanilla harmony. The pickings are slim (mostly) and what comes together is a motley crew of questionable talent. There’s Fat Amy played hilariously by Rebel Wilson, who can mermaid dance like no other. (Mainly because who else would?) There’s sexy Stacie (Alexis Knapp) who may be more comfortable with a stripper pole than singing soprano, and butch Cynthia who can’t keep her eyes of Stacie. Also in the group is Lilly (Hanna Mae Lee) who is borderline mute. So it’s no wonder Chloe aggressively recruits Beca whom she ambushes in the shower after overhearing Beca singing David Guetta’s “Titanium”.
The Bellas arch rivals are the Treble Makers and of course, Beca’s love interest in the movie is Treble Maker, Jesse (Skylar Astin) who somehow gets cuter with every scene. But he’s got to work pretty hard to impress Beca who’s more interested in her headphones than listening to Jesse wax on about the “Breakfast Club” which he believes has the best movie ending ever. Personally, I was a little disconcerted by the fact that college-age kids spoke of “Breakfast Club” with a reverance usually reserved for classics like Casablanca. Even my guest leaned over and said, “But that’s so before their time.” Then I realized, to kids who weren’t even alive when Breakfast Club was made, it would be a classic.
But Jesse’s pursuit of her isn’t Beca’s only problem. The songs Aubrey is dead set on the Bellas perfecting are yawn-worthy at best, which was grating on the music mixologist. The Bellas simply can’t win against the Treble Makers with tired arrangements of Ace of Base, Bangles and Gloria Estefan songs. But Aubrey is resistant to Beca’s attempts to bring the Bellas into the current decade. Therein lies the movie’s requisite conflicts.
Pitch Perfect in a word is fun. Simply fun. There were plenty of laughs, mainly thanks to Rebel Wilson’s scene-stealing lines and some outrageous repartee between competition commentators played by Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins. The highlights, of course, were the singing performances. All of the actors have great pipes and the harmonies will please any choir geek who attends. But lest you think it’s only a teen flick, in an audience of mixed generations, the loudest laughter was from the older audience.
Sure, such movies are usually trite and predictable. But who cares? There’s singing and dancing! I don’t care that I’m expected to buy 27 year old Anna Kendrick as a rebellious, aspiring DJ named Beca, starting her freshman year at Barden College. She and Bella just graduated from high school in the Twilight series, so, sure, why not? Bribed by her dad with a promise to help her move to L.A. if she gave college a chance for one year, Becca considers what Barden has to offer. Unfortunately for her, the college’s “D.J. Club” is more about Semitic sign language than mixing beats.
Enter The Bellas, the college’s recently disgraced female a capella group lead by Aubrey (Anna Camp) and Chloe (Brittany Snow). Because of the uptight Aubrey’s shocking performance at a recent competition, they need to rebuild a group that can sing in saccharine-sweet, vanilla harmony. The pickings are slim (mostly) and what comes together is a motley crew of questionable talent. There’s Fat Amy played hilariously by Rebel Wilson, who can mermaid dance like no other. (Mainly because who else would?) There’s sexy Stacie (Alexis Knapp) who may be more comfortable with a stripper pole than singing soprano, and butch Cynthia who can’t keep her eyes of Stacie. Also in the group is Lilly (Hanna Mae Lee) who is borderline mute. So it’s no wonder Chloe aggressively recruits Beca whom she ambushes in the shower after overhearing Beca singing David Guetta’s “Titanium”.
The Bellas arch rivals are the Treble Makers and of course, Beca’s love interest in the movie is Treble Maker, Jesse (Skylar Astin) who somehow gets cuter with every scene. But he’s got to work pretty hard to impress Beca who’s more interested in her headphones than listening to Jesse wax on about the “Breakfast Club” which he believes has the best movie ending ever. Personally, I was a little disconcerted by the fact that college-age kids spoke of “Breakfast Club” with a reverance usually reserved for classics like Casablanca. Even my guest leaned over and said, “But that’s so before their time.” Then I realized, to kids who weren’t even alive when Breakfast Club was made, it would be a classic.
But Jesse’s pursuit of her isn’t Beca’s only problem. The songs Aubrey is dead set on the Bellas perfecting are yawn-worthy at best, which was grating on the music mixologist. The Bellas simply can’t win against the Treble Makers with tired arrangements of Ace of Base, Bangles and Gloria Estefan songs. But Aubrey is resistant to Beca’s attempts to bring the Bellas into the current decade. Therein lies the movie’s requisite conflicts.
Pitch Perfect in a word is fun. Simply fun. There were plenty of laughs, mainly thanks to Rebel Wilson’s scene-stealing lines and some outrageous repartee between competition commentators played by Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins. The highlights, of course, were the singing performances. All of the actors have great pipes and the harmonies will please any choir geek who attends. But lest you think it’s only a teen flick, in an audience of mixed generations, the loudest laughter was from the older audience.
The Hanging Club
8.0
Rate It
Book
"Tony Parsons puts you right there in every scene he writes. I love that kind of storytelling and...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Mulan (2020) in Movies
Dec 18, 2020
Completely uninteresting
Mulan (2020) is the live action adaptation of the 1998 Disney animation of the same name, the latest in the live action remakes of Disney classics based on a young woman who disguises herself as a male soldier to save her father.
I’ll start with an admission: I’ve never seen the original animated Mulan. Despite being an avid Disney fan, growing up living and breathing everything Disney, somehow as an eleven year old when it was first released Mulan just passed me by, and has carried in doing so in the 20+ years since. Unlike the other live action Disney remakes in which I had so many preconceptions and so much love for the originals, I went into Mulan entirely open and with no expectations. This I hoped would prove to be a benefit when watching this remake, however I’m afraid to say that it actually may have put me at even more of a disadvantage.
The biggest issue with this film is that is entirely lacking in everything you’d usually expect from an animated Disney film and what I don’t doubt is present in the 1998 original. Disney films are full of heart, laughter, cutesy creatures and catchy songs whilst with an underlying serious plot with more menace and threat than you’d expect. This remake appears to have removed everything you know and love about Disney and replaced it with a very serious, very drawn out and actually quite dull plot. Yes there is still the good message in here that hopefully will motivate young women, but it’s lost behind a film that is severely lacking in any really spirit or character.
Yifei Liu does well as Mulan, at least with what she’s given to work with as far as the script goes. However she really suffers with the romance side, as there is zero chemistry between Mulan and Honghui, even with Yoson An’s charismatic performance. Jet Li is barely recognisable as the Emperor and Donnie Yen really needed to channel more of his Rogue One character to lighten the mood. Even the villains, Bori Khan (Jason Scott Lee) and Xianniang (Li Gong) have little to work with, with Xianniang’s witch being let down by the most by the poor writing and character development.
The cast however aren’t really at fault here. The film looks good, the sets and costumes are impressive and everything feels lush and colourful. However I felt the action scenes had been so obviously ‘Disney-fied’ that they lost all sense of fun and, well, action. They felt over choreographed and with the large amount of fight scenes in this, the lack of proper violence and blood was far too obvious. And the over-used slow motion alongside some questionable CGI was unbearable. Considering they wanted to make this a more accurate and serious Disney adaptation, it’s a shame they didn’t go far enough to make the action a little more adult.
I really wanted to like this, but for me it was just severely deficient in anything that makes a Disney film likeable. Had I seen the original, it may have at least brought some form of love and nostalgia. However all this has succeeded in doing is making me want to watch the original, both as a comparison and for some much needed fun and laughter.
I’ll start with an admission: I’ve never seen the original animated Mulan. Despite being an avid Disney fan, growing up living and breathing everything Disney, somehow as an eleven year old when it was first released Mulan just passed me by, and has carried in doing so in the 20+ years since. Unlike the other live action Disney remakes in which I had so many preconceptions and so much love for the originals, I went into Mulan entirely open and with no expectations. This I hoped would prove to be a benefit when watching this remake, however I’m afraid to say that it actually may have put me at even more of a disadvantage.
The biggest issue with this film is that is entirely lacking in everything you’d usually expect from an animated Disney film and what I don’t doubt is present in the 1998 original. Disney films are full of heart, laughter, cutesy creatures and catchy songs whilst with an underlying serious plot with more menace and threat than you’d expect. This remake appears to have removed everything you know and love about Disney and replaced it with a very serious, very drawn out and actually quite dull plot. Yes there is still the good message in here that hopefully will motivate young women, but it’s lost behind a film that is severely lacking in any really spirit or character.
Yifei Liu does well as Mulan, at least with what she’s given to work with as far as the script goes. However she really suffers with the romance side, as there is zero chemistry between Mulan and Honghui, even with Yoson An’s charismatic performance. Jet Li is barely recognisable as the Emperor and Donnie Yen really needed to channel more of his Rogue One character to lighten the mood. Even the villains, Bori Khan (Jason Scott Lee) and Xianniang (Li Gong) have little to work with, with Xianniang’s witch being let down by the most by the poor writing and character development.
The cast however aren’t really at fault here. The film looks good, the sets and costumes are impressive and everything feels lush and colourful. However I felt the action scenes had been so obviously ‘Disney-fied’ that they lost all sense of fun and, well, action. They felt over choreographed and with the large amount of fight scenes in this, the lack of proper violence and blood was far too obvious. And the over-used slow motion alongside some questionable CGI was unbearable. Considering they wanted to make this a more accurate and serious Disney adaptation, it’s a shame they didn’t go far enough to make the action a little more adult.
I really wanted to like this, but for me it was just severely deficient in anything that makes a Disney film likeable. Had I seen the original, it may have at least brought some form of love and nostalgia. However all this has succeeded in doing is making me want to watch the original, both as a comparison and for some much needed fun and laughter.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
Not quite (Inter)stellar...
Ad Astra is a discreet sci-fi film set in an unspecified near future, and is the claustrophobic, deliberate and tense story of Major Roy McBride (played intentionally one-dimensional by Brad Pitt), a soldier and an astronaut, recruited to a top secret mission revolving around the father he never knew, portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.
Wing Chun Techniques
Sports and Health & Fitness
App
Wing Chun really came to the limelight with Bruce Lee coming to the big screen. Wing Chub is a...
Calm Radio - Online streaming with relaxing music
Music and Entertainment
9.0
Rate It
App
CalmRadio comes loaded with: 1 -Over 240 subscription channels** (no commercials) 2 -Over 190 free...
Decked Builder
Games and Entertainment
App
Decked Builder is the premium deck building app for Magic the Gathering -- providing a sleek user...
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...