Search
Search results
Mandy and G.D. Burkhead (26 KP) rated The Grey Bastards in Books
May 20, 2018
Shelf Life – The Grey Bastards Exemplifies Grimdark Fantasy at Its Damn Finest
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Grey Bastards is a fun, foul-mouthed read. If you’re turned off by bad language, steamy sex, or a good plot with plenty of action and twists, then this book isn’t for you. The Grey Bastards falls into the fantasy sub-genre known as grimdark. Where high fantasy has your Tolkien beautiful and noble elves, dwarves, humans, and wizards with epic battles between good and evil, grimdark takes all of that and covers it in shit, pus, and blood. Notice how in high fantasy nobody ever takes a piss or fucks? In grimdark, everyone does.
But don’t be fooled into thinking this book will be any less intelligent, epic, or heartfelt for it. The Grey Bastards is all of that and more. The novel follows Jackal, a half-breed orc living in the Lot Lands, the barren desert wasteland of Hispartha. He is a Grey Bastard, one of many half-orc hoofs, each protecting its own small town in the Lots. Members of a hoof are elite warriors that ride out on their Barbarians—giant warthogs—and slaughter invading bands of orcs.
Hispartha is a vibrant world, with a mix of fantastical species (orcs, half-orcs, elves, humans, halflings, and centaurs) with unique cultures and religions. Hispartha itself takes influences from Reconquista Spain, which is especially noticeable in the nomenclature, geography, and architecture.
The primarily atheistic half-orcs recently won their freedom from slavery at the hands of humans. Humans treat the half-orcs like second-class citizens, but tolerate them because of their strength, using them as a shield from the orcs. The elves are beautiful, reclusive, and probably the most cliché; there is one important elf character, but for the most part, we don’t get a good look into their culture in the first book. The centaurs worship Romanesque deities and go on crazed, Bacchanalian killing sprees during the blood moon.
Besides the half-orcs, the halflings are perhaps the most interesting. I still have a hard time visualizing them, trying to figure out if they are thin, pixie-like creatures or more stocky like dwarves. Their small stature and black skin makes me think of pygmies. They worship a god they expect will reincarnate someday, (view spoiler)
One thing that has always annoyed me about fantasy is that many authors feel that the characters of their world, being pre-industrial and thus “medieval,” must all be white, straight, Christian (or proto-Christian), cisgender males. If a woman appears at all is to act as the damsel, prize, or, if she’s lucky, a mystical enchantress to guide the heroes or provide a maguffin. It has come to the point in which this has become a tired and accepted baseline for fantasy. I don’t necessarily think that these fantasy authors are intentionally trying to be uninclusive, so much as they just seem to forget that other groups of people can exist in fantasy thanks to its fathers, Tolkien and Lewis.
But enough with my rant, the purpose of which is to highlight why I am often drawn to grimdark fantasy: at the very least I know that women, people of color, lgbt people, and other religions will be present, even if they are often victimized. This is because grimdark fantasy honestly depicts the horrors of rape, war, murder, slavery, and racism (or rather, speciesism in most cases) and has heroes and villains that are morally grey.
However, many authors describe these atrocities and then leave it at that, assuming that simply depicting them is enough to make a book mature and meaningful. They often fail to make any sort of statement on evil, and thus can seem to be, at best, blindly accepting it and, at worst, glorifying it (this often happens in the cases of magnificent bastard characters, who are absolute monsters but are so charming you almost respect or like them).
Jonathan French, however, does not fall short of the mark as many authors do, and for two main reasons: humor and humanity.
Let’s start with the humor. This book is hilarious. I mean in the I literally laughed out loud while reading it way. Sure, the jokes are often crass, but I have a dirty mind, so inappropriate humor is my favorite kind. The dialogue is especially top-notch, and the interactions between Jackal and his friends Fetching and Oats feel genuine, full of in-jokes, insults, and sexually-charged humor, all of which are exactly how I interact with my own close friends. And every major character in this book is so damn witty that I’m honestly jealous of them. If I could be quick enough to make even one of their zingers at the right time in a conversation, I would feel proud of myself for the rest of the day.
Humor is necessary to prevent any grimdark fantasy from becoming too over-the-top or depressing. And honestly, humor is needed most when the world is a dark and frightening place. But too much humor could accidentally downplay the point of grimdark: the brutally honest depiction of the atrocities that people are capable of.
And this is where it is important to have an element of humanity. By this I mean that the “good guys” must make some action or statement on those atrocities. Too often I read or watch hardened badass characters with no emotion who can watch a person get tortured and killed without flinching (maybe even do it themselves) and who never stop to question the nature of their society (even as part of their character growth), and I have difficulty finding them at all relatable or even the least bit interesting.
Now, often for this type of character, he or she is dead inside as a coping mechanism and part of their character arc is learning to allow themselves to feel their repressed emotions: heartbreak, anger, fear, etc. This can be done very well (see The Hunger Games for a great example—dystopian scifi and grimdark fantasy have very similar undertones). But most times it just ends up falling flat.
But Jackal already starts out with more personality than most grimdark protagonists. He is a humorous and light-hearted person. Sure, he lives in a desert wasteland, his race is entirely created by rape, he’s treated as a second-class citizen, and his life and the lives of those around him are in constant danger of rape and/or murder by invading orcs or blood-crazed centaurs. But despite all of that, he still has a sense of humor, people he loves, a community, ambitions, moral code, and all of the other things that these protagonists are often lacking.
Don’t get me wrong, he can be an asshole, and he’s often acts rashly before he thinks. But the scene that really stuck with me the most was [when Jackal and the wizard Crafty come across an unconscious elf sex-slave. I was expecting him to say something along the lines of “There’s nothing we can do for her, we have to save ourselves” or “This isn’t any of our business” or “It would be best to just put her out of her mercy.” These are the typical lines that a grimdark protagonist might utter while their companion—accused of being a bleeding heart—frees the slave. But this was not the case. Jackal and Crafty both immediately set out to free the girl and steal her away from her owner, despite the danger to themselves. And when he comes across an entire castle-full of these women, Jackal again sets about freeing them without a moment’s hesitation. (hide spoiler)]
And it’s no surprise that Jackal has a serious problem with rape. As I’ve mentioned before, half-orcs are entirely the product of roving bands of orcs raping human, elven, or even half-orc women. [When Jackal learns that Starling, the elf slave he rescued, is pregnant with a half-orc baby, he is not only furious with the orcs that gang-raped her, but also disturbed by the fact that elven society shuns any of their women who have been raped, and that these victims often end up taking their own lives rather than give birth to an impure half-elf. (hide spoiler)]
Furthermore, Jackal, unlike many people in Hispartha, does not buy into misogyny or sexism. His best friend Fetching is the first female half-orc to have joined a group of riders. Not only does Jackal respect Fetching, he understands the emotional turmoil that she is dealing with being the first female rider and how she overcompensates as a result to earn the respect of the other men.
While there is quite a bit of speciesism (pretty much none of the species get along with one another), the inhabitants of Hispartha come in every skin color and nobody gives a damn. Furthermore, sexuality is primarily treated as each person’s individual preference and nobody else’s business. While characters may make jokes about acting “backy” (gay), these are made in good humor between friends, and nobody gets particularly offended by them. Fetching is herself openly bisexual (though she seems to suppress her heterosexual desires more than her homosexual ones out of that same need to be “one of the boys”), and Oats and Jackal are one of my favorite bromantic pairings.
Grimdark fantasy can often be depressing to read. But Jonathan French does an excellent job of infusing hope into his narrative. The story actually has a happier ending than I was expecting. [I was especially pleased when Jackal chooses Fetching to be the new leader of the hoof (she is voted in unanimously by the other riders). I find it incredibly annoying in books and movies when revolutionaries/usurpers decide to appoint themselves leaders, as the former does not qualify you for the latter. Part of Jackal’s arc is realizing that he is not meant to lead the hoof like he’d once desired. (hide spoiler)]
For the sequel, The True Bastards, I’m hoping to see [if a cure can be found for the thrice-blood child now infected with plague, how Fetching is doing leading the hoof, and what the mysterious Starling is up to (I don’t buy for a second that she’s killed herself). And of course, I fully expect that Jackal is going to have to fulfill his empty promise to the halfling’s resurrected god, Belico.
But don’t be fooled into thinking this book will be any less intelligent, epic, or heartfelt for it. The Grey Bastards is all of that and more. The novel follows Jackal, a half-breed orc living in the Lot Lands, the barren desert wasteland of Hispartha. He is a Grey Bastard, one of many half-orc hoofs, each protecting its own small town in the Lots. Members of a hoof are elite warriors that ride out on their Barbarians—giant warthogs—and slaughter invading bands of orcs.
Hispartha is a vibrant world, with a mix of fantastical species (orcs, half-orcs, elves, humans, halflings, and centaurs) with unique cultures and religions. Hispartha itself takes influences from Reconquista Spain, which is especially noticeable in the nomenclature, geography, and architecture.
The primarily atheistic half-orcs recently won their freedom from slavery at the hands of humans. Humans treat the half-orcs like second-class citizens, but tolerate them because of their strength, using them as a shield from the orcs. The elves are beautiful, reclusive, and probably the most cliché; there is one important elf character, but for the most part, we don’t get a good look into their culture in the first book. The centaurs worship Romanesque deities and go on crazed, Bacchanalian killing sprees during the blood moon.
Besides the half-orcs, the halflings are perhaps the most interesting. I still have a hard time visualizing them, trying to figure out if they are thin, pixie-like creatures or more stocky like dwarves. Their small stature and black skin makes me think of pygmies. They worship a god they expect will reincarnate someday, (view spoiler)
One thing that has always annoyed me about fantasy is that many authors feel that the characters of their world, being pre-industrial and thus “medieval,” must all be white, straight, Christian (or proto-Christian), cisgender males. If a woman appears at all is to act as the damsel, prize, or, if she’s lucky, a mystical enchantress to guide the heroes or provide a maguffin. It has come to the point in which this has become a tired and accepted baseline for fantasy. I don’t necessarily think that these fantasy authors are intentionally trying to be uninclusive, so much as they just seem to forget that other groups of people can exist in fantasy thanks to its fathers, Tolkien and Lewis.
But enough with my rant, the purpose of which is to highlight why I am often drawn to grimdark fantasy: at the very least I know that women, people of color, lgbt people, and other religions will be present, even if they are often victimized. This is because grimdark fantasy honestly depicts the horrors of rape, war, murder, slavery, and racism (or rather, speciesism in most cases) and has heroes and villains that are morally grey.
However, many authors describe these atrocities and then leave it at that, assuming that simply depicting them is enough to make a book mature and meaningful. They often fail to make any sort of statement on evil, and thus can seem to be, at best, blindly accepting it and, at worst, glorifying it (this often happens in the cases of magnificent bastard characters, who are absolute monsters but are so charming you almost respect or like them).
Jonathan French, however, does not fall short of the mark as many authors do, and for two main reasons: humor and humanity.
Let’s start with the humor. This book is hilarious. I mean in the I literally laughed out loud while reading it way. Sure, the jokes are often crass, but I have a dirty mind, so inappropriate humor is my favorite kind. The dialogue is especially top-notch, and the interactions between Jackal and his friends Fetching and Oats feel genuine, full of in-jokes, insults, and sexually-charged humor, all of which are exactly how I interact with my own close friends. And every major character in this book is so damn witty that I’m honestly jealous of them. If I could be quick enough to make even one of their zingers at the right time in a conversation, I would feel proud of myself for the rest of the day.
Humor is necessary to prevent any grimdark fantasy from becoming too over-the-top or depressing. And honestly, humor is needed most when the world is a dark and frightening place. But too much humor could accidentally downplay the point of grimdark: the brutally honest depiction of the atrocities that people are capable of.
And this is where it is important to have an element of humanity. By this I mean that the “good guys” must make some action or statement on those atrocities. Too often I read or watch hardened badass characters with no emotion who can watch a person get tortured and killed without flinching (maybe even do it themselves) and who never stop to question the nature of their society (even as part of their character growth), and I have difficulty finding them at all relatable or even the least bit interesting.
Now, often for this type of character, he or she is dead inside as a coping mechanism and part of their character arc is learning to allow themselves to feel their repressed emotions: heartbreak, anger, fear, etc. This can be done very well (see The Hunger Games for a great example—dystopian scifi and grimdark fantasy have very similar undertones). But most times it just ends up falling flat.
But Jackal already starts out with more personality than most grimdark protagonists. He is a humorous and light-hearted person. Sure, he lives in a desert wasteland, his race is entirely created by rape, he’s treated as a second-class citizen, and his life and the lives of those around him are in constant danger of rape and/or murder by invading orcs or blood-crazed centaurs. But despite all of that, he still has a sense of humor, people he loves, a community, ambitions, moral code, and all of the other things that these protagonists are often lacking.
Don’t get me wrong, he can be an asshole, and he’s often acts rashly before he thinks. But the scene that really stuck with me the most was [when Jackal and the wizard Crafty come across an unconscious elf sex-slave. I was expecting him to say something along the lines of “There’s nothing we can do for her, we have to save ourselves” or “This isn’t any of our business” or “It would be best to just put her out of her mercy.” These are the typical lines that a grimdark protagonist might utter while their companion—accused of being a bleeding heart—frees the slave. But this was not the case. Jackal and Crafty both immediately set out to free the girl and steal her away from her owner, despite the danger to themselves. And when he comes across an entire castle-full of these women, Jackal again sets about freeing them without a moment’s hesitation. (hide spoiler)]
And it’s no surprise that Jackal has a serious problem with rape. As I’ve mentioned before, half-orcs are entirely the product of roving bands of orcs raping human, elven, or even half-orc women. [When Jackal learns that Starling, the elf slave he rescued, is pregnant with a half-orc baby, he is not only furious with the orcs that gang-raped her, but also disturbed by the fact that elven society shuns any of their women who have been raped, and that these victims often end up taking their own lives rather than give birth to an impure half-elf. (hide spoiler)]
Furthermore, Jackal, unlike many people in Hispartha, does not buy into misogyny or sexism. His best friend Fetching is the first female half-orc to have joined a group of riders. Not only does Jackal respect Fetching, he understands the emotional turmoil that she is dealing with being the first female rider and how she overcompensates as a result to earn the respect of the other men.
While there is quite a bit of speciesism (pretty much none of the species get along with one another), the inhabitants of Hispartha come in every skin color and nobody gives a damn. Furthermore, sexuality is primarily treated as each person’s individual preference and nobody else’s business. While characters may make jokes about acting “backy” (gay), these are made in good humor between friends, and nobody gets particularly offended by them. Fetching is herself openly bisexual (though she seems to suppress her heterosexual desires more than her homosexual ones out of that same need to be “one of the boys”), and Oats and Jackal are one of my favorite bromantic pairings.
Grimdark fantasy can often be depressing to read. But Jonathan French does an excellent job of infusing hope into his narrative. The story actually has a happier ending than I was expecting. [I was especially pleased when Jackal chooses Fetching to be the new leader of the hoof (she is voted in unanimously by the other riders). I find it incredibly annoying in books and movies when revolutionaries/usurpers decide to appoint themselves leaders, as the former does not qualify you for the latter. Part of Jackal’s arc is realizing that he is not meant to lead the hoof like he’d once desired. (hide spoiler)]
For the sequel, The True Bastards, I’m hoping to see [if a cure can be found for the thrice-blood child now infected with plague, how Fetching is doing leading the hoof, and what the mysterious Starling is up to (I don’t buy for a second that she’s killed herself). And of course, I fully expect that Jackal is going to have to fulfill his empty promise to the halfling’s resurrected god, Belico.
Heavy-going treatise on man's reaction to alien interference
*** Disclosure - I received a free advance copy of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review ***
I have been planning on reading Erikson's Malazan series for some time but have yet to take the plunge. Getting approval to read Erikson's new sci-fi book gave me the chance to experience his writing style without such a big commitment.
The book itself feels like a short sci-fi story where Canadian sci-fi author Samantha August is abducted by aliens and is shown how the alien race are helping the human race, in order to keep Earth safe for their future use. The aliens start to implement a number of changes in the planet, and other planets in the solar system, in order to protect the human race, and Earth itself, from their inbuilt self-destructive nature. Despite these improvements (no violence, drugs or alcohol, replenished food stocks and animal populations) the human race do what we do best - look past the surface benefits with suspicion to find the underlying threat and to use it to further our own selfish goals.
This short is then padded out with more in-depth insight from a large cast of characters - the leaders of a large number of countries, Murdoch-esque media oligarchs, and a range of former arms dealers and warlords. Their insights give the book a feel like World War Z, where the same story is told from a number of different viewpoints to give the varying angles and opinions. While this does add to the overall story (where Samantha's chapters focus on the high level changes and reactions, we are treated to some localised insights), most of these characters are pretty throwaway and don't really seem to have a distinct voice.
The book itself is very heavy-going, with very detailed in-depth analysis of the political, religious, ideological, economic and sociological issues being faced by the human race when such an intrusion, though a beneficial one, is experienced.
This is not a book one can pick up for short periods or read when tired, it really does take some effort to concentrate to get the most out of it.
While it was an interesting take on how such a good thing would likely be ruined by human nature, the narrative was quite detrimental to the overall piece.
I have been planning on reading Erikson's Malazan series for some time but have yet to take the plunge. Getting approval to read Erikson's new sci-fi book gave me the chance to experience his writing style without such a big commitment.
The book itself feels like a short sci-fi story where Canadian sci-fi author Samantha August is abducted by aliens and is shown how the alien race are helping the human race, in order to keep Earth safe for their future use. The aliens start to implement a number of changes in the planet, and other planets in the solar system, in order to protect the human race, and Earth itself, from their inbuilt self-destructive nature. Despite these improvements (no violence, drugs or alcohol, replenished food stocks and animal populations) the human race do what we do best - look past the surface benefits with suspicion to find the underlying threat and to use it to further our own selfish goals.
This short is then padded out with more in-depth insight from a large cast of characters - the leaders of a large number of countries, Murdoch-esque media oligarchs, and a range of former arms dealers and warlords. Their insights give the book a feel like World War Z, where the same story is told from a number of different viewpoints to give the varying angles and opinions. While this does add to the overall story (where Samantha's chapters focus on the high level changes and reactions, we are treated to some localised insights), most of these characters are pretty throwaway and don't really seem to have a distinct voice.
The book itself is very heavy-going, with very detailed in-depth analysis of the political, religious, ideological, economic and sociological issues being faced by the human race when such an intrusion, though a beneficial one, is experienced.
This is not a book one can pick up for short periods or read when tired, it really does take some effort to concentrate to get the most out of it.
While it was an interesting take on how such a good thing would likely be ruined by human nature, the narrative was quite detrimental to the overall piece.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Underrated
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is the third and final installment of the iconoclastic Transformers franchise. By the law of diminishing returns, this should have fallen well below the par from the excellent first outing; well, has it? The answer is a definite no. First off, it's not as good as good as Transformers, lacking much of the comedy and puerile action, but it would be on par with the Revenge Of The Fallen, which is not up to much in many critic's opinions, which was overly smashy, confused and missed some of the pacing of the first.
Dark Of the Moon carries on the tradition of complex back stories, tying in to U.S. Space Race history, this time, right back to 1962 and the inception of the Apollo programme. Here, they postulate that NASA's moon race was purely conceived to get to the Moon first to recover a massive Cybertron based space craft, which had crashed in the Moon after the final battle on the doomed Transformer planet.
At the crash site, Sentinel Prime is discovered and years later, Optimus Prime recovers him, as he was the true leader of the Autobots in their war with the Decepticons. Also, there are a collection of what are referred to as Pillars, very 3D friendly, yet still plausibly so, floating metallic rod styled devices which would play a pivotal role later. Meanwhile, Sam, Shia LaBeouf, has moved on from his Megan Fox girlfriend and has now, somewhat inexplicably, moved in with Victoria Secrets model, though in the film, she's supposed to be some form a P.A., played by the inept Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, which is simply ridiculous. This point is also brought up in the script as his own mother warns him that he would not get so lucky a third time!
The world is has now been invaded by Decepticons and Sam, along with his collection of mis-matched allies and seven remaining Autobots are all that stands between them and total destruction. Sounds like a good setup but with a typical running time 157 minutes, the plot was simply too thin to sustain itself, leading to patchy pacing and moments that begin to plod. I didn't find this to be all that bad but others felt that the word boring would more than a little apt.
You see for me, the pay off of robots beating the hell out of each other and taking the world down with them is worth the wait and the flaws in the narrative, but for others, this will not be the case. Leonard Nimoy's voice portrayal of Sentinel Prime was fine, but the constant need to remind us that it was Mr. Spock wasn't. This culminated in a completely unnecessary piece of dialogue where Sentinel reprises Spock's line from Star Trek II, "...The needs of the many, out way the needs of the few". This was a quote to far in my opinion, certainly when justifying some questionable and immoral acts...
Then there was the 3D, and what 3D it was! This finally proved that a blockbuster can be produced in 3D without sacrificing the cinematography for cynical dimensional gestures. The film looked as I would expect any 2D blockbustering actioner to look, with sweeping aerial action and objects flying towards the audience but the 3D effect only amplified this, and didn't make it. This was well conceived and I take my hats of to them. This is what 3D should look like and it was visually arresting.
Overall, the film provided all the thrills and spills that you would expect from Transformers, with acceptable acting for a film of this genre, with the gross exception of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who should stick to modeling and as acting or even speaking would seem to be light years beyond her. John Malkovich and Frances McDormand, deliver great cameos and bring some of the only really decent acting to the film, with the further exceptions of the returning John Turturro and the addition of Alan Tudyk, who both deliver most of the belly laughs in this outing.
It was fun but not as much fun as the previous films. DOTM was clearly trying to shift the tone and in doing so it succeeded at moving the film into a slightly darker, more action film place. This felt more like a straight forward 12 rated actioner such as Bay's other efforts, The Rock and Armageddon and a little less of the lighter more child friendly overtones of the previous two. Still, I enjoyed this and feel very strongly that the naysayers who would rate this film so lowly that you'd have to look for it in the gutter, have allowed themselves to take this way too seriously.
Is this the end of for Transformers? I hope so, but the door is still open and with the vast profits that it's already made, Transformers 4 could be just around the next corner. If that's the case, it is not what i would prefer, feeling that they've gone as far as they came but I would certainly run out to watch it!
Dark Of the Moon carries on the tradition of complex back stories, tying in to U.S. Space Race history, this time, right back to 1962 and the inception of the Apollo programme. Here, they postulate that NASA's moon race was purely conceived to get to the Moon first to recover a massive Cybertron based space craft, which had crashed in the Moon after the final battle on the doomed Transformer planet.
At the crash site, Sentinel Prime is discovered and years later, Optimus Prime recovers him, as he was the true leader of the Autobots in their war with the Decepticons. Also, there are a collection of what are referred to as Pillars, very 3D friendly, yet still plausibly so, floating metallic rod styled devices which would play a pivotal role later. Meanwhile, Sam, Shia LaBeouf, has moved on from his Megan Fox girlfriend and has now, somewhat inexplicably, moved in with Victoria Secrets model, though in the film, she's supposed to be some form a P.A., played by the inept Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, which is simply ridiculous. This point is also brought up in the script as his own mother warns him that he would not get so lucky a third time!
The world is has now been invaded by Decepticons and Sam, along with his collection of mis-matched allies and seven remaining Autobots are all that stands between them and total destruction. Sounds like a good setup but with a typical running time 157 minutes, the plot was simply too thin to sustain itself, leading to patchy pacing and moments that begin to plod. I didn't find this to be all that bad but others felt that the word boring would more than a little apt.
You see for me, the pay off of robots beating the hell out of each other and taking the world down with them is worth the wait and the flaws in the narrative, but for others, this will not be the case. Leonard Nimoy's voice portrayal of Sentinel Prime was fine, but the constant need to remind us that it was Mr. Spock wasn't. This culminated in a completely unnecessary piece of dialogue where Sentinel reprises Spock's line from Star Trek II, "...The needs of the many, out way the needs of the few". This was a quote to far in my opinion, certainly when justifying some questionable and immoral acts...
Then there was the 3D, and what 3D it was! This finally proved that a blockbuster can be produced in 3D without sacrificing the cinematography for cynical dimensional gestures. The film looked as I would expect any 2D blockbustering actioner to look, with sweeping aerial action and objects flying towards the audience but the 3D effect only amplified this, and didn't make it. This was well conceived and I take my hats of to them. This is what 3D should look like and it was visually arresting.
Overall, the film provided all the thrills and spills that you would expect from Transformers, with acceptable acting for a film of this genre, with the gross exception of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who should stick to modeling and as acting or even speaking would seem to be light years beyond her. John Malkovich and Frances McDormand, deliver great cameos and bring some of the only really decent acting to the film, with the further exceptions of the returning John Turturro and the addition of Alan Tudyk, who both deliver most of the belly laughs in this outing.
It was fun but not as much fun as the previous films. DOTM was clearly trying to shift the tone and in doing so it succeeded at moving the film into a slightly darker, more action film place. This felt more like a straight forward 12 rated actioner such as Bay's other efforts, The Rock and Armageddon and a little less of the lighter more child friendly overtones of the previous two. Still, I enjoyed this and feel very strongly that the naysayers who would rate this film so lowly that you'd have to look for it in the gutter, have allowed themselves to take this way too seriously.
Is this the end of for Transformers? I hope so, but the door is still open and with the vast profits that it's already made, Transformers 4 could be just around the next corner. If that's the case, it is not what i would prefer, feeling that they've gone as far as they came but I would certainly run out to watch it!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Apr 13, 2020
One of the GOATS
At the time of this writing, Saving Private Ryan is sitting at fourteen on my all-time list. It is one of those once-in-a-lifetime movies that doesn’t come along too often. The story revolves around an army captain in WWII taking his men on a suicide mission to rescue a private before he is killed in action. Private Ryan’s three brothers have already been killed in action and the military wants to get the remaining Ryan home so his mother won’t have lost all of her children in one war.
Acting: 10
Where do I start? With Tom Hanks and his brilliant performance as Captain John Miller? Vin Diesel in probably one of his best roles as Private Caparzo. Tom Sizemore…Matt Damon…There are so many amazing performances that contributed to the greatness of this movie. You usually see it in glimpses as each character doesn’t get much in the way of their own screen time. The movie is packed with so many of those glimpse moments from these stellar actors, it’s hard to forget each of their roles.
Beginning: 10
Boasts one of the best opening twenty minutes in movie history. It’s violent, touching, and sucks you right in to the meat of the movie. There is so much intensity here, from the raucous sounds to the visceral feel of everything, that it’s hard to catch your breath afterwards.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
If you want knock-your-socks-off action from beginning to end, Saving Private Ryan is absolutely the movie for you. The battles are amazing giving you a front row seat to World War II. Steven Spielberg relies on a number of different camera angles to give you the full effect. Every scene is heartstopping as you realize the stakes and understand that no one is safe in this ultimate battle to stay alive. This movie has more action in the first twenty minutes than most films do through their entirety.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
For the most part, the story is pretty linear. There is a mission. Go and complete the mission. The end. However, there are two existing twists within the movie that definitely make things more interesting and entertaining. Those small tweaks were enough to satisfy my craving for originality.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
There is a scene on the beach where the camera shoots from underwater then repeatedly rises and falls in the water showing the grit of everything happening. This is one of a number of shots that makes Saving Private Ryan one of the all-time movies to ever exist in cinema. This movie is flat out amazing.
Acting: 10
Where do I start? With Tom Hanks and his brilliant performance as Captain John Miller? Vin Diesel in probably one of his best roles as Private Caparzo. Tom Sizemore…Matt Damon…There are so many amazing performances that contributed to the greatness of this movie. You usually see it in glimpses as each character doesn’t get much in the way of their own screen time. The movie is packed with so many of those glimpse moments from these stellar actors, it’s hard to forget each of their roles.
Beginning: 10
Boasts one of the best opening twenty minutes in movie history. It’s violent, touching, and sucks you right in to the meat of the movie. There is so much intensity here, from the raucous sounds to the visceral feel of everything, that it’s hard to catch your breath afterwards.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
If you want knock-your-socks-off action from beginning to end, Saving Private Ryan is absolutely the movie for you. The battles are amazing giving you a front row seat to World War II. Steven Spielberg relies on a number of different camera angles to give you the full effect. Every scene is heartstopping as you realize the stakes and understand that no one is safe in this ultimate battle to stay alive. This movie has more action in the first twenty minutes than most films do through their entirety.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
For the most part, the story is pretty linear. There is a mission. Go and complete the mission. The end. However, there are two existing twists within the movie that definitely make things more interesting and entertaining. Those small tweaks were enough to satisfy my craving for originality.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 100
There is a scene on the beach where the camera shoots from underwater then repeatedly rises and falls in the water showing the grit of everything happening. This is one of a number of shots that makes Saving Private Ryan one of the all-time movies to ever exist in cinema. This movie is flat out amazing.
The Alex Crow
Book
From the critically acclaimed author of cult teen novel Grasshopper Jungle, Andrew Smith, comes a...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Battle: Los Angeles (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
War movies depicting a group of soldiers against overwhelming odds are nothing new. For generations, moviegoers have been treated to cinematic recreations as well as new scenarios of fighting units in combat. Usually these films follow a typical formula that includes the tough and gritty commanding officer, the naïve new soldier, the one with a woman and children waiting at home, and one who has difficulties with combat. In the new movie Battle: Los Angeles a new twist is given to the formulaic troops-in-combat picture which produces a mixed bag of results.
Aaron Eckhart stars as Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz; a 20 year Marine who, after losing men on a recent mission, has decided that it is time for him to leave and has filed his retirement paperwork from the corps. While completing a training exercise, Nantz and a squadron of Marines at Camp Pendleton are activated for what they are told is an evacuation mission in order to clear Santa Monica and other area residents from a swarm of meteors which are scheduled to hit just off the coast.
Nantz is assigned to a new commanding officer who, like the men in his unit, is wary of Nantz as many believe that he got his men killed in his last assignment. Despite the misgivings of the new lieutenant, he agrees that Nantz offers a wealth of experience and should be just fine for a simple evacuation assignment.
However during the mission briefing, the Marines are informed that the meteors that are hitting off the coast of major cities around the world contain metallic centers and that this is very likely an invasion from an unknown force. While the Marines are deploying an otherworldly fighting unit emerges destroying everything in their path as they moved inland from the coast line. Unsure what they are dealing with, the military decides to carpet bomb the city in order to contain the alien threat and give Nantz and his unit three hours to enter the combat zone and evacuate civilians from a police station.
While the movie is for the most part the standard soldiers-at-war film which substitute’s aliens for the usual enemy forces, the strength of the cast and the solid action and special effects help the movie overcome many of its shortcomings. There is little character development in the film and scenarios that were introduced in some of the characters’ backstories early in the film were given little to no chance to develop once the shooting started.
I also had an issue with some of the tactics in the film. While it may seem nitpicking there were a few scenes where the soldiers didn’t follow logical courses of engagement until later in the film. I have had only the most basic of combat instruction from my brief time in the Air Force, yet I can think of at least four scenarios in the film where the unit failed to use the most logical options available in their combat situation. Of course any film dealing with an alien invasion is sure to have plot holes and yes I can quibble about the Air Force waiting three hours to bomb a heavily overrun area when containment would have been priority one in not allowing a hostile force that much time to entrench itself.
That being said it was an interesting and entertaining film. The enemy was sufficiently mysterious and dangerous enough to hold my interest and had me rooting desperately for the troops to rise up and strike back at the enemy. Michelle Rodriguez does fine supporting work in the role of an Air Force Tech Sgt. who may have the key to turning the tide of the battle. Eckhart is solid as the gruff but caring staff sergeant is equally strong and his unit of young corporals, including R&B singer Ne-Yo, are believable.
Director Jonathan Liebesman knows the core intention of this film is and in doing so provides enough action to keep the audience entertained throughout. despite some issues with pacing and plot. While it doesn’t have the epic feel of Independence Day, Battle: Los Angeles is a film that provides enough entertainment to make it one of the better alien invasion films ever made and one that I certainly would not mind seeing revisited in a future sequel.
3.5 stars out of 5
Aaron Eckhart stars as Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz; a 20 year Marine who, after losing men on a recent mission, has decided that it is time for him to leave and has filed his retirement paperwork from the corps. While completing a training exercise, Nantz and a squadron of Marines at Camp Pendleton are activated for what they are told is an evacuation mission in order to clear Santa Monica and other area residents from a swarm of meteors which are scheduled to hit just off the coast.
Nantz is assigned to a new commanding officer who, like the men in his unit, is wary of Nantz as many believe that he got his men killed in his last assignment. Despite the misgivings of the new lieutenant, he agrees that Nantz offers a wealth of experience and should be just fine for a simple evacuation assignment.
However during the mission briefing, the Marines are informed that the meteors that are hitting off the coast of major cities around the world contain metallic centers and that this is very likely an invasion from an unknown force. While the Marines are deploying an otherworldly fighting unit emerges destroying everything in their path as they moved inland from the coast line. Unsure what they are dealing with, the military decides to carpet bomb the city in order to contain the alien threat and give Nantz and his unit three hours to enter the combat zone and evacuate civilians from a police station.
While the movie is for the most part the standard soldiers-at-war film which substitute’s aliens for the usual enemy forces, the strength of the cast and the solid action and special effects help the movie overcome many of its shortcomings. There is little character development in the film and scenarios that were introduced in some of the characters’ backstories early in the film were given little to no chance to develop once the shooting started.
I also had an issue with some of the tactics in the film. While it may seem nitpicking there were a few scenes where the soldiers didn’t follow logical courses of engagement until later in the film. I have had only the most basic of combat instruction from my brief time in the Air Force, yet I can think of at least four scenarios in the film where the unit failed to use the most logical options available in their combat situation. Of course any film dealing with an alien invasion is sure to have plot holes and yes I can quibble about the Air Force waiting three hours to bomb a heavily overrun area when containment would have been priority one in not allowing a hostile force that much time to entrench itself.
That being said it was an interesting and entertaining film. The enemy was sufficiently mysterious and dangerous enough to hold my interest and had me rooting desperately for the troops to rise up and strike back at the enemy. Michelle Rodriguez does fine supporting work in the role of an Air Force Tech Sgt. who may have the key to turning the tide of the battle. Eckhart is solid as the gruff but caring staff sergeant is equally strong and his unit of young corporals, including R&B singer Ne-Yo, are believable.
Director Jonathan Liebesman knows the core intention of this film is and in doing so provides enough action to keep the audience entertained throughout. despite some issues with pacing and plot. While it doesn’t have the epic feel of Independence Day, Battle: Los Angeles is a film that provides enough entertainment to make it one of the better alien invasion films ever made and one that I certainly would not mind seeing revisited in a future sequel.
3.5 stars out of 5
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Salt (2010) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Disappointing 80's retread...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Salt. The trailer looked rubbish, dated and starring Angelina Jolie, was never going to tickle my fancy. Reminding me of Rodger Donaldson's, Kevin Costner starrer, No Way Out, I felt that the attempt may be to bring that 80′s thriller to a new audience but instead we got a very confused tome. Firstly, I will cover the good points, which start with the script.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Though heavily flawed and mired by poor dialogue, pacing and a schizophrenic narrative, it was clearly intelligently conceived and several neat twists, though generally predictable, had survived. And besides the music, that's about it. In the end, this is a film with little identity, seeking to confuse the audience and bring them into the complex world of double agents and apocalyptic doomsday scenarios.
The story begins with Evelyn Salt, who after being released from a Korean prison and being brutally integrated as a spy, married her "Cover" husband who we believe she actually loves, in spite of the fact that he is being used as the aforementioned "cover". Then, 2 years later, she is brought into interrogate a Russian defector who tells her that she is a sleeper agent whose mission it to kill the Russian Premier, which she vehemently denies and goes on the run to prove her innocence and protect her husband
Sounds pretty straight forward so far But after about half an hour, everything shifts as she assassinates the Russian President, dons a Russian hat, meets up with the defector and watches her husband drown before her eyes to prove her loyalty to her brethren of sleeper agents. Then, she murders ALL of them! She meets up with another sleeper, breaks into the White House, blows part of it up and ends up in a room with a "master agent", a key player from earlier in the film and completely predictable twist, with a dead U.S. President and a nuclear countdown ticking
The main problem with this isn't the outlandish plotting but the fact that we never really know who Salt is. She starts out as a normal CIA agent, who is then placed under suspicion of being a Russian sleeper, then she 's on the run and until this point were satisfied that she's being set up, but then she is not only guilty, thereby destroying all the character development of the first act, she's a VERY guilty and clearly a bad guy.
Then she is forced to watch her husband die to prove her loyalty, only to promptly kill those who murdered him, so really, what was then point? This was a man whom she was wanting to save at all costs in the opening 30 minutes but when she finds him he's left to die.
Then she commits an outlandish assassination of the Russian Premier, or does she? But by the time she's making her way into the preposterously defended nuclear bunker, I simply don't like her, or really understand what the hell she's playing at? And without the empathy for the titular character, there's little going for the film.
This is an ambitious project but fails to engage with me, as Jolie is a truly terrible leading lady in my opinion, and casting her in such a duplicitous role was a mistake. Even if a character changes allegiances, we still know who they are but this is not the case here as Salt seems to have a split personality with little explanation.
And the final point must be that if Russia had trained a band of sleeper agents this skilled, this lethal that they could not only infiltrate the U.S., but fight their way into the heart of the White House's Nuclear Bunker, I believe that the Cold War would have heated up a long time ago and that we'd all be speaking Russian too!
A real shame that what could have been a pretty effective Cold War thriller was allowed to descend into an unpleasant and non-empathetic watch.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mauritanian (2021) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Great acting from all four leads, especially Tahar Rahim (2 more)
Great use of screen ratios for flashbacks
Very thought provoking
War crimes don't just happen on the battlefield
It’s 2001. Bush and Rumsfeld seek vengeance on the perpetrators of 9/11. Quite right too. But rounding up hundreds of suspects and incarcerating them for years, without charge, in Guantánamo Bay in Cuba was an appalling act for a supposedly first-world country.
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
“The Mauritanian” then is the true story of one such unfortunate – Mohamedou Ould Slahi, played by Tahar Rahim. We first join Slahi at a family wedding in Nouakchott (good “Pointless” answer for the capital of Mauritania people!). ‘Invited for questioning’ by the American authorities, we next see Slahi in the Cuban stronghold.
Pro-bono lawyer Nancy Hollander (Jodie Foster) becomes a pariah by picking up his defence. Supporting her is assistant Teri Duncan (Shailene Woodley). Hollander is very formal and professionally aloof, not assuming his guilt or innocence. After meeting the man, and assuming his innocence, Duncan though is more emotionally involved. The man opposing them at trial is US Army prosecutor Stuart Couch (Benedict Cumberbatch). Couch, having lost one of his best friends aboard the South Tower plane, has an axe to grind.
As the pair battle unseen forces for access to documentation, they uncover more and more of the truth about life in Guantánamo Bay.
Positives:
- I've not read the book so I found the story gripping. As the related legal information is divulged, the movie drip-feeds flashbacks of Slahia's story, which is clever.
- Acting wise, "The Mauritanian" has top notch stuff. Tahir Rahim is excellent as Slahia. He portrays charismatic and confident businessman, brought down to earth with a bump. Not recognizing him with an Oscar nomination feels like a minor crime. He will have to make do with the BAFTA nomination. Also brilliant is Jodie Foster. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man pointed out, it's so nice to see an actress acting her age with confidence. The ever-watchable Shailene Woodley is also great, especially in a dramatic 'dismissal' scene. She adds some much needed warmth to the legal team. The southern drawl from Cumberbatch is a bit of a surprise and takes some getting used to. But it's still a strong performance from him.
- After ranting on last time at Zack Snyder's use of 4:3 screen ratios in "Justice League", here is an intelligent use of the technique. The film is in 16:9 ratio, but then pivots to 4:3 for all of the Guantanamo flashback scenes, reflecting the claustrophobia of Slahia's position.
- Real-life footage over the closing titles is absolutely fascinating.
Negatives:
- I personally didn't find this a particular negative, but I went into the film knowing it to be a "legal drama". So there would be lots of scenes, as in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", with courtroom debate and gavel-banging, right? Actually, there is almost none of that. Most of the legal action is in terms of the preparation of the case and the paperwork involved. (If this makes the movie sound excruciatingly dull... think again!)
- The Guantanamo story ends quite abruptly (with the above-mentioned jolt), and left me wanting to see more of the intervening time. It's not often that I complain about a film running too short, but here is one where just a little of "the Snyder treatment" might have been welcomed!
Additional Note for the squeamish: For those worried about seeing distressing scenes of torture (e.g. Fingernail extraction, etc), these are - although disturbing - more of the "psychological torment" type. So those of a squeamish disposition can still watch this one.
Summary Thoughts:
The fact that "The Mauritanian" is a true story hammers home just what the US has been up to over the last 20 years. War crimes are not only committed on the battlefield.
Director Kevin Macdonald is no stranger to documentaries ("Touching the Void", "Whitney"). He's also proved adept at bringing gripping true stories to the screen (having previously given us "The Last King of Scotland"). Here, the emotional journeys of the key characters are well observed making the movie 'highly recommended'.
For the full One Mann's Movies review see here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/09/the-mauritanian-america-are-you-squirming-with-embarrassment/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Why is everyone not raving about this movie?
Imagine a ménage à trois of Agatha Christie, Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino at the Overlook Hotel with a banging 60’s soundtrack. Got that unpleasant vision in your mind? Good! You’re halfway there to getting the feel of “Bad Times at the El Royale”. And they really are bad times!
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aftermath (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aftermath starts by showing us a man struggling to walk through an abandoned landscape. We then flash back to one month earlier where we learn about an ongoing war between America and Israel. We meet or protagonist Hunter (Thomason) as he listens to the ongoing war before nuclear explosion hit leading him to rescue a young family. The group also meet another survivor in the road but find a place to stay underground in a farmhouse with another small group of survivors. Hunter explains they will need to spend at least a month underground while the fall out of the nuclear attack settles. We follow the group through the month as tension rise over time.
When I saw this and the title I was actually looking to settle down and watch a horror like film, but what we got was so much more. First off there is no horror involved, it is all tension building character development. We see the group over 30 days and how their situation gets worse as each day goes by, with only the radio to update them. We get to see how the radiation slowly changes and infects them while others try to get in. it plays on a range of emotions and comes off very bleak. This is a great story of the struggle to survive after a nuclear attack from the point of view of the innocent victims. (7/10)
Actor Review
C.J. Thomason: Hunter doctor and survivalist who leads the group of survivors as they try to make it through the attack in a farm basement. He tries to treat everyone who has issues but even with his skills he can’t save everyone from the situation. C.J. gives a good performance as a reluctant leader. (7/10)
hunter
Monica Keena: Elizabeth stranger picked up on the side of the road, she stays with the group and sometimes looks out for younger members by her calm nature. Monica gives a solid performance but sometimes struggles in the action scenes. (6/10)
monica
Edward Furlong: Brad over protective redneck who doesn’t want to let the group in and is always against the decision to let them in. he is a hot head but as the time goes by he wants to look after the group as much as the rest. Edward gives a good performance and does a good job with the only character that shows full emotion. (7/10)
ed
Support Cast: Aftermath’s supporting cast is mainly extra people in the basement who go through the struggles but also includes the people outside who are too far gone to let in.
Director Review: Peter Engert – Peter does a good job directing Aftermath creating genuine tension throughout. (8/10)
Action: Aftermath only has a few action scenes and they are quick, but each comes off desperate like the situation the people are in. (7/10)
Thriller: Aftermath really pulls you in as you want to know what happens to the group and feel for them when things start to get worse. (8/10)
Settings: Aftermath uses its isolation setting that the group creates for themselves to survive really well, as it keeps us unaware of what is going on outside. (9/10)
Suggestion: Aftermath is worth watching, but I do feel like the casual fan might not enjoy this, it really will appeal to those who enjoy a solid drama about survival. (Try It)
Best Part: The bleakness that surrounds the story.
Worst Part: Aftermath can come off feeling a little bit slow.
Believability: Aftermath tackles a potential real problem the world could face. (7/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 32 Minutes
Overall: A Great Unwatched Thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/24/aftermath-2012/
When I saw this and the title I was actually looking to settle down and watch a horror like film, but what we got was so much more. First off there is no horror involved, it is all tension building character development. We see the group over 30 days and how their situation gets worse as each day goes by, with only the radio to update them. We get to see how the radiation slowly changes and infects them while others try to get in. it plays on a range of emotions and comes off very bleak. This is a great story of the struggle to survive after a nuclear attack from the point of view of the innocent victims. (7/10)
Actor Review
C.J. Thomason: Hunter doctor and survivalist who leads the group of survivors as they try to make it through the attack in a farm basement. He tries to treat everyone who has issues but even with his skills he can’t save everyone from the situation. C.J. gives a good performance as a reluctant leader. (7/10)
hunter
Monica Keena: Elizabeth stranger picked up on the side of the road, she stays with the group and sometimes looks out for younger members by her calm nature. Monica gives a solid performance but sometimes struggles in the action scenes. (6/10)
monica
Edward Furlong: Brad over protective redneck who doesn’t want to let the group in and is always against the decision to let them in. he is a hot head but as the time goes by he wants to look after the group as much as the rest. Edward gives a good performance and does a good job with the only character that shows full emotion. (7/10)
ed
Support Cast: Aftermath’s supporting cast is mainly extra people in the basement who go through the struggles but also includes the people outside who are too far gone to let in.
Director Review: Peter Engert – Peter does a good job directing Aftermath creating genuine tension throughout. (8/10)
Action: Aftermath only has a few action scenes and they are quick, but each comes off desperate like the situation the people are in. (7/10)
Thriller: Aftermath really pulls you in as you want to know what happens to the group and feel for them when things start to get worse. (8/10)
Settings: Aftermath uses its isolation setting that the group creates for themselves to survive really well, as it keeps us unaware of what is going on outside. (9/10)
Suggestion: Aftermath is worth watching, but I do feel like the casual fan might not enjoy this, it really will appeal to those who enjoy a solid drama about survival. (Try It)
Best Part: The bleakness that surrounds the story.
Worst Part: Aftermath can come off feeling a little bit slow.
Believability: Aftermath tackles a potential real problem the world could face. (7/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 32 Minutes
Overall: A Great Unwatched Thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/24/aftermath-2012/