Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Last Night in Soho (2021) in Movies
Oct 15, 2021
I was on the fence about this one. On the one hand, Edgar Wright, on the other, a cast that didn’t inspire confidence. But, if nothing else, it was going to be a spectacle.
Eloise dreams of being a fashion designer, and when she gets accepted to study fashion in London she thinks her dreams have come true. But London life isn’t quite what she hoped. When life in halls becomes too much, she finds herself an attic room to rent. Noisy roommates might have been the easier option when suddenly, every night, Eloise is transported to the 60s where the life of Sandie unfolds in front of her. Swept away in the glamour, the tables turn when Sandie’s life beings to twist into a new stark reality.
The start of Last Night in Soho pulled me in, the music had me, if nothing else I knew I’d be able to enjoy myself with the soundtrack. It’s a very nostalgic bit of listening for me having been brought up in a household that’s listening was a little more retro.
As the story develops, and Eloise along with it, you’re eager for answers. But that process feels drawn out and at some point it’s easy to see where it’s going to go before it’s properly alluded to, which took away some of the impact for me.
Our main character Eloise (played by Thomasin McKenzie), definitely has the right look and demeanour for this part. While in the end it’s a good performance though, I feel like the role would have been better suited to someone a little less on the nose. They've conveyed the mental health portion of the role nicely (the depiction of her mother felt a little Harry Potter but did get the point across), and she managed to encapsulate some of the terror, but again, it felt… cheesy? Maybe not the right word, but it was close to not giving it enough impact in the story, and I could see this working more on the horror side of things with some changes.
Ahh, Anya. Another from my list of people on the credits that make me go “meh”. I was sold with this performance though. I'm not fully on the Joy train, but I very much enjoyed this performance. Her attitude and behaviour the whole way through sold the character and… that’s it… really great. (So many things I want to say and so many that constitute spoilers.)
The supporting cast has some big names. Diana Rigg in her last performance gave a much needed edge to the scenes she was in. Matt Smith was cockney Matt Smith. My only particular call out would be for the character rather than the actor. The role of Eloise’s “boyfriend” was verging on problematic, both from a boyfriend and a writing point of view. A wet blanket of a character that seemed to be too close to comic relief without committing one way or the other. Even allowing for some sort of “support” for Eloise, this role could have been divvied out to a selection of other characters.
Last Night in Soho is stylish. The homely naive Eloise meeting glam forward Sandie really came together, and seeing Sandie’s influence seeping into the present day in the fashion and demeanour was interesting. The colours, the sets, the costumes, you can’t fault any of it.
Not being an expert in cinematic mastery behind the scenes, some of these things can escape me, but even I couldn’t miss the stunning editing and effects. Everything is seamless, and when you see some of those scenes I’m sure you’ll be blown away too.
On the technical side, this film is probably very close to a 5 star film, but with the character issues I had and the feeling that there was something missing from the ending, I’m even now not sure what my score for Last Night in Soho is going to be...
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/10/last-night-in-soho-movie-review.html
Eloise dreams of being a fashion designer, and when she gets accepted to study fashion in London she thinks her dreams have come true. But London life isn’t quite what she hoped. When life in halls becomes too much, she finds herself an attic room to rent. Noisy roommates might have been the easier option when suddenly, every night, Eloise is transported to the 60s where the life of Sandie unfolds in front of her. Swept away in the glamour, the tables turn when Sandie’s life beings to twist into a new stark reality.
The start of Last Night in Soho pulled me in, the music had me, if nothing else I knew I’d be able to enjoy myself with the soundtrack. It’s a very nostalgic bit of listening for me having been brought up in a household that’s listening was a little more retro.
As the story develops, and Eloise along with it, you’re eager for answers. But that process feels drawn out and at some point it’s easy to see where it’s going to go before it’s properly alluded to, which took away some of the impact for me.
Our main character Eloise (played by Thomasin McKenzie), definitely has the right look and demeanour for this part. While in the end it’s a good performance though, I feel like the role would have been better suited to someone a little less on the nose. They've conveyed the mental health portion of the role nicely (the depiction of her mother felt a little Harry Potter but did get the point across), and she managed to encapsulate some of the terror, but again, it felt… cheesy? Maybe not the right word, but it was close to not giving it enough impact in the story, and I could see this working more on the horror side of things with some changes.
Ahh, Anya. Another from my list of people on the credits that make me go “meh”. I was sold with this performance though. I'm not fully on the Joy train, but I very much enjoyed this performance. Her attitude and behaviour the whole way through sold the character and… that’s it… really great. (So many things I want to say and so many that constitute spoilers.)
The supporting cast has some big names. Diana Rigg in her last performance gave a much needed edge to the scenes she was in. Matt Smith was cockney Matt Smith. My only particular call out would be for the character rather than the actor. The role of Eloise’s “boyfriend” was verging on problematic, both from a boyfriend and a writing point of view. A wet blanket of a character that seemed to be too close to comic relief without committing one way or the other. Even allowing for some sort of “support” for Eloise, this role could have been divvied out to a selection of other characters.
Last Night in Soho is stylish. The homely naive Eloise meeting glam forward Sandie really came together, and seeing Sandie’s influence seeping into the present day in the fashion and demeanour was interesting. The colours, the sets, the costumes, you can’t fault any of it.
Not being an expert in cinematic mastery behind the scenes, some of these things can escape me, but even I couldn’t miss the stunning editing and effects. Everything is seamless, and when you see some of those scenes I’m sure you’ll be blown away too.
On the technical side, this film is probably very close to a 5 star film, but with the character issues I had and the feeling that there was something missing from the ending, I’m even now not sure what my score for Last Night in Soho is going to be...
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/10/last-night-in-soho-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Everything Everywhere All At Once (2022) in Movies
Apr 15, 2022
A fun ride - with heart
The first recommendation when watching EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE is to not try to figure out what is going on in this movie during the first 1/2 hour to 45 minutes. This will drive you mad. Just sit back and enjoy the mind-bending experience you are having.
After that point, either it will click in your brain…or it won’t. If it does - great! If not…continue to sit back and enjoy the mind-bending experience you are having.
For…EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE is a trippy head-trip of a film that is certainly unique - but it also has something going for it that all good films do - characters that you will care about in a story that will touch your heart.
Written and Directed by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (SWISS ARMY MAN), EVERYTHING…tells the tale of unhappily married couple Evelyn Wang (Michelle Yeoh) and Waymond Wang (Ke Huy Quan), her father Gong Gong (the great James Hong) and their daughter, Joy (Stephanie Hsu). When interdimensional travel interrupts their mundane life, things get much, much more than mundane.
Yes, folks, you read that right INTERDIMENSIONAL TRAVEL - and this is not a Marvel movie! Evelyn and family start jumping to parallel dimensions, experiencing everything, everywhere…all at once (hence, the name of the film).
This is a smart, unique and visually interesting film and credit for this must go to Wang and Scheinert. They have come up with something unusual. However, they don’t just do “unusual for unusual sake” they wrap this film up - and connect the dots - in a satisfying way in the end. Oh…and they also build in some incredibly impressive fight scenes along the way. To not hype them too much, but these are the best fight scenes that have been on film in quite some time - certainly the most interesting and unique since the JOHN WICK films.
The duo, smartly, enlisted the aid of the underappreciated - but very talented - Michelle Yeoh (CRAZY RICH ASIANS) as the protagonist of this piece. It is a wise choice for she must go from mousey housewife to kick-butt SuperHero (and everywhere in between) throughout the course of this film and her Martial Arts background comes in very, very handy. It is a bravura performance by Yeoh and it would be TERRIFIC if her name is called come awards season next year (yes, it is that good of a performance).
She is ably assisted by Hong (a veteran character actor with more than 450 credits to his name), Hsu (known for her role as Mei in THE MARVELOUS MRS. MAISEL) and, especially Quan (the kid “Short Round” who assists the hero in INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM) - it was good to see Quan back on the big screen.
The filmmakers also sprinkle some very strong character actors/actresses in the mix here. Both Jenny Slate (Mona-Lisa Saperstein in PARKS & REC) and Harry Shum, Jr. (GLEE, CRAZY RICH ASIANS) are fun in small roles as is the aforementioned James Hong as Gong Gong (the Grandfather).
But…the person who ALMOST steals this film from Ms. Yeoh is the incomparable Jamie Lee Curtis as the somewhat overweight and out of shape IRS Agent who plays a pivotal role in Evelyn’s life across the Dimensions. It is a fun role for Curtis who is not afraid to look physically bad. Again, I would LOVE IT if she got some love come awards time next year (she won’t, but maybe in some other parallel Universe she would).
Not for everyone - the multi-dimensional travel is going to give some folks a headache as they try to figure things out - but if you surrender yourself to the wildness that is going on, and embrace the spirit and the heart of this film, you will be rewarded with a very rich film going experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars out of 10 (might move up to 9 on a rewatch) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
After that point, either it will click in your brain…or it won’t. If it does - great! If not…continue to sit back and enjoy the mind-bending experience you are having.
For…EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE is a trippy head-trip of a film that is certainly unique - but it also has something going for it that all good films do - characters that you will care about in a story that will touch your heart.
Written and Directed by Dan Kwan and Daniel Scheinert (SWISS ARMY MAN), EVERYTHING…tells the tale of unhappily married couple Evelyn Wang (Michelle Yeoh) and Waymond Wang (Ke Huy Quan), her father Gong Gong (the great James Hong) and their daughter, Joy (Stephanie Hsu). When interdimensional travel interrupts their mundane life, things get much, much more than mundane.
Yes, folks, you read that right INTERDIMENSIONAL TRAVEL - and this is not a Marvel movie! Evelyn and family start jumping to parallel dimensions, experiencing everything, everywhere…all at once (hence, the name of the film).
This is a smart, unique and visually interesting film and credit for this must go to Wang and Scheinert. They have come up with something unusual. However, they don’t just do “unusual for unusual sake” they wrap this film up - and connect the dots - in a satisfying way in the end. Oh…and they also build in some incredibly impressive fight scenes along the way. To not hype them too much, but these are the best fight scenes that have been on film in quite some time - certainly the most interesting and unique since the JOHN WICK films.
The duo, smartly, enlisted the aid of the underappreciated - but very talented - Michelle Yeoh (CRAZY RICH ASIANS) as the protagonist of this piece. It is a wise choice for she must go from mousey housewife to kick-butt SuperHero (and everywhere in between) throughout the course of this film and her Martial Arts background comes in very, very handy. It is a bravura performance by Yeoh and it would be TERRIFIC if her name is called come awards season next year (yes, it is that good of a performance).
She is ably assisted by Hong (a veteran character actor with more than 450 credits to his name), Hsu (known for her role as Mei in THE MARVELOUS MRS. MAISEL) and, especially Quan (the kid “Short Round” who assists the hero in INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM) - it was good to see Quan back on the big screen.
The filmmakers also sprinkle some very strong character actors/actresses in the mix here. Both Jenny Slate (Mona-Lisa Saperstein in PARKS & REC) and Harry Shum, Jr. (GLEE, CRAZY RICH ASIANS) are fun in small roles as is the aforementioned James Hong as Gong Gong (the Grandfather).
But…the person who ALMOST steals this film from Ms. Yeoh is the incomparable Jamie Lee Curtis as the somewhat overweight and out of shape IRS Agent who plays a pivotal role in Evelyn’s life across the Dimensions. It is a fun role for Curtis who is not afraid to look physically bad. Again, I would LOVE IT if she got some love come awards time next year (she won’t, but maybe in some other parallel Universe she would).
Not for everyone - the multi-dimensional travel is going to give some folks a headache as they try to figure things out - but if you surrender yourself to the wildness that is going on, and embrace the spirit and the heart of this film, you will be rewarded with a very rich film going experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars out of 10 (might move up to 9 on a rewatch) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
The Star Wars Story that nobody asked for, but was is a story worth telling?
In short, NO.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Big Trail (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“The Indians are my friends…” Breck Coleman – John Wayne
Not exactly a statement that would exemplify the Career of a man rightly or wrongly associated as being the Cowboy of the Cowboy and Indian movies. But there is no doubt that John Wayne was certainly one of the biggest western stars of cinema.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
Fred (860 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Apr 29, 2019
Not worth your time
Let's face it, Marvel doesn't really have any female characters that can lead a movie by themselves. We are told this is the first, but yet our main character is surrounded by men & well established characters like Nick Fury & Agent Coulson from S.H.I.E.L.D.
This movie was surrounded by controversy because it's star, Brie Larson, said something about the movie being for the empowerment of women & doesn't care what white men think about it. This set off white men who boycotted the movie, which didn't amount to much, since the movie was still a hit. But did it deserve it?
Okay, so when I see a movie, I quite frankly watch the movie & base my review on it. Yes, I'm a white male who should be bothered by Larson's words, but being a movie fan & a superhero movie fan, I am able to block that out & watch the movie.
So, here we go. I am a Fantastic Four fan. They have been & always will be my favorite comic book. And so, I was looking forward to finally seeing the Skrulls on film. I won't give anything away, but I'll say the Skrulls were done very well, as were the Kree. Now we've seen the Kree before in the Marvel films, but not the Skrulls. So, the movie has that going for it.
The effects to give us a young Samuel Jackson & a young Clark Gregg have been perfected. Yes, we've seen it before, but now it's not even noticeable.
Now, let's get to the movie itself. It's typical Marvel fare, starts off good, gets boring, ends with a bang. The story is quite mediocre, with no real surprises. It's set in the 90s, to try to get that nostalgia people love in today's film. But quite frankly, the 90s were not that great. The music sucked (evidenced by the horrible songs in this movie) & had nothing worth while to be nostalgic over. Yeah, you 90s kids will disagree, but don't worry, the music's only got worse since then, so at least you music is better than the last 20 years'. Now, get off my lawn, punks!
The main problem with this movie is Captain Marvel herself. Like I said, she's not a great enough character to pull off having her own movie to begin with. The character is not a strong character. Yes, she's powerful, but that's not what I mean. I mean she's not a huge comic book character. Is she as well know as let's say, Wonder Woman? Not even close. I can guarantee that most of the people who saw this movie knew little about the character. It's not Marvel's fault. See, although the new thing in movies is to have strong women in the leads, to use older comic book characters doesn't work too well. Women in the comics were hardly represented the way they are in the films of today. They were always weaker, always the damsels in distress. So when today we get the movie people saying "This female character is the strongest in the universe." or "This female character is the smartest in the universe.", it takes years of pushing aside comic book discrimination to accept that.
But okay, I can push that aside. An even bigger problem is Brie Larson herself. She is bland to say the least. We needed a strong actor to push this character in our faces & say "Yeah! She's the best! A real hero!" But, no. She's not. She doesn't even make the character interesting at all. She's a shell of a character. At the end when she's flighting & flying around & smashing things, she feels like she's a CGI puppet being pushed through the scene. There's no sense of power. I don't care about her. I'm not cheering her on, nor am I wanting her to fail. There's just nothing. When she appears in Endgame, it's the same feeling. If the main character is uninteresting, how can the movie be any good?
In the end, I'm giving this one of the lowest scores of all the Marvel films. If not for the supporting cast, which were good, I probably would have given this a 2 out of 10. This movie is unnecessary to the overall plot of the MCU. There are some good lines, good parts, but not enough to want to watch it again.
This movie was surrounded by controversy because it's star, Brie Larson, said something about the movie being for the empowerment of women & doesn't care what white men think about it. This set off white men who boycotted the movie, which didn't amount to much, since the movie was still a hit. But did it deserve it?
Okay, so when I see a movie, I quite frankly watch the movie & base my review on it. Yes, I'm a white male who should be bothered by Larson's words, but being a movie fan & a superhero movie fan, I am able to block that out & watch the movie.
So, here we go. I am a Fantastic Four fan. They have been & always will be my favorite comic book. And so, I was looking forward to finally seeing the Skrulls on film. I won't give anything away, but I'll say the Skrulls were done very well, as were the Kree. Now we've seen the Kree before in the Marvel films, but not the Skrulls. So, the movie has that going for it.
The effects to give us a young Samuel Jackson & a young Clark Gregg have been perfected. Yes, we've seen it before, but now it's not even noticeable.
Now, let's get to the movie itself. It's typical Marvel fare, starts off good, gets boring, ends with a bang. The story is quite mediocre, with no real surprises. It's set in the 90s, to try to get that nostalgia people love in today's film. But quite frankly, the 90s were not that great. The music sucked (evidenced by the horrible songs in this movie) & had nothing worth while to be nostalgic over. Yeah, you 90s kids will disagree, but don't worry, the music's only got worse since then, so at least you music is better than the last 20 years'. Now, get off my lawn, punks!
The main problem with this movie is Captain Marvel herself. Like I said, she's not a great enough character to pull off having her own movie to begin with. The character is not a strong character. Yes, she's powerful, but that's not what I mean. I mean she's not a huge comic book character. Is she as well know as let's say, Wonder Woman? Not even close. I can guarantee that most of the people who saw this movie knew little about the character. It's not Marvel's fault. See, although the new thing in movies is to have strong women in the leads, to use older comic book characters doesn't work too well. Women in the comics were hardly represented the way they are in the films of today. They were always weaker, always the damsels in distress. So when today we get the movie people saying "This female character is the strongest in the universe." or "This female character is the smartest in the universe.", it takes years of pushing aside comic book discrimination to accept that.
But okay, I can push that aside. An even bigger problem is Brie Larson herself. She is bland to say the least. We needed a strong actor to push this character in our faces & say "Yeah! She's the best! A real hero!" But, no. She's not. She doesn't even make the character interesting at all. She's a shell of a character. At the end when she's flighting & flying around & smashing things, she feels like she's a CGI puppet being pushed through the scene. There's no sense of power. I don't care about her. I'm not cheering her on, nor am I wanting her to fail. There's just nothing. When she appears in Endgame, it's the same feeling. If the main character is uninteresting, how can the movie be any good?
In the end, I'm giving this one of the lowest scores of all the Marvel films. If not for the supporting cast, which were good, I probably would have given this a 2 out of 10. This movie is unnecessary to the overall plot of the MCU. There are some good lines, good parts, but not enough to want to watch it again.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
All the fun of the circus
Ah, the movie musical. Once the choice of matinee viewings and Saturday nights in front of the TV, they’ve evolved over the last decade into something completely mainstream. From the ridiculously good remake of Hairspray in 2007, to the vibrant Mamma Mia, which gets its very own sequel Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again this year, musicals have become the ultimate in escapism.
Following on from his exceptional role in the deeply depressing Les Miserables, everyone’s favourite Australian actor, Hugh Jackman returns to the genre with The Greatest Showman. But is it worth you warming up your vocal chords for?
Inspired (very loosely may I add) by the imagination of P. T. Barnum, The Greatest Showman is an original musical that celebrates the birth of show business & tells of a visionary (Jackman) who rose from nothing to create a spectacle that became a worldwide sensation. The story is simple as we follow Barnum and his family as they rise from the depths of debt to the glitzy world of fame and fortune.
However, looking deeper, this rather poignant tale has special resonance today. In this ever-divided world, it’s message of acceptance and equality is something the majority of us still strive for. Whether it be for those who have suffered from homophobic, racial or any other abuse for simply being ‘different’, The Greatest Showman will take on a new, more emotional meaning.
One of the strongest parts of The Greatest Showman is its cast. Alongside Jackman, we have musical expert Zac Efron, Spider-Man: Homecoming’s Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson (Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation) and Michelle Williams (All the Money in the World). Every single one of them is outstanding, emoting beautifully over the course of the film but this very much Jackman’s baby (it took nearly 7 years to get the idea to screen) and his performance is one of the best of his career.
I’m going to dedicate this paragraph to Efron, as I feel he’s been given a bit of a rough ride by me and Movie Metropolis in general. With his recent roles in Dirty Grandpa and Baywatch, he was becoming better at taking his shirt off than acting in any great capacity, but he proves in The Greatest Showman that he still has that acting prowess that made him so popular with the High School Musical crowd.
Thankfully The Greatest Showman has some of the best pieces of music in the genre
Barnum is a complex character portrayed with a warmth by Jackman that many of his peers would’ve struggled to emulate. Elsewhere, Keala Settle wows as bearded lady, Lettie. It appears her efforts here haven’t gone unnoticed as her powerful ballad This is Me has been nominated for an Oscar at this year’s awards – and it’s well-deserving of taking the crown. She is absolutely astounding.
The brings us nicely onto the songs. A musical, as its name suggests, lives or dies on the basis of its songs and score, and thankfully The Greatest Showman has some of the best pieces of music in the genre. There isn’t a single dud in the track listing with Rewrite the Stars, performed by Zac Efron and Zendaya, and the aforementioned This is Me, sang by Keala Settle being highlights. It’s fair to say that you’ll be clapping and singing along in no time.
Pacing is also one of the film’s strongest suits. Zipping along at only 105 minutes, The Greatest Showman doesn’t mess about in throwing song after song at the audience and this is more than welcome. First-time director Michael Gracey’s shot choices are rudimentary but colour leaps off the screen throughout and the cinematography really benefits from his more static filming style.
It’s testament to the talents of Hugh Jackman and this phenomenal cast that nearly two months after the film’s theatrical release, people are still flocking to see The Greatest Showman in cinemas across the globe. And it’s easy to see why. From start to finish, it is an absolute joy to watch. With a cracking set of songs, created by La La Land’s Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, and stunning performances by each member of the cast, it’s an absolute treat for the whole family to enjoy and my first five-star film of 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/17/the-greatest-showman-review-all-the-fun-of-the-circus/
Following on from his exceptional role in the deeply depressing Les Miserables, everyone’s favourite Australian actor, Hugh Jackman returns to the genre with The Greatest Showman. But is it worth you warming up your vocal chords for?
Inspired (very loosely may I add) by the imagination of P. T. Barnum, The Greatest Showman is an original musical that celebrates the birth of show business & tells of a visionary (Jackman) who rose from nothing to create a spectacle that became a worldwide sensation. The story is simple as we follow Barnum and his family as they rise from the depths of debt to the glitzy world of fame and fortune.
However, looking deeper, this rather poignant tale has special resonance today. In this ever-divided world, it’s message of acceptance and equality is something the majority of us still strive for. Whether it be for those who have suffered from homophobic, racial or any other abuse for simply being ‘different’, The Greatest Showman will take on a new, more emotional meaning.
One of the strongest parts of The Greatest Showman is its cast. Alongside Jackman, we have musical expert Zac Efron, Spider-Man: Homecoming’s Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson (Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation) and Michelle Williams (All the Money in the World). Every single one of them is outstanding, emoting beautifully over the course of the film but this very much Jackman’s baby (it took nearly 7 years to get the idea to screen) and his performance is one of the best of his career.
I’m going to dedicate this paragraph to Efron, as I feel he’s been given a bit of a rough ride by me and Movie Metropolis in general. With his recent roles in Dirty Grandpa and Baywatch, he was becoming better at taking his shirt off than acting in any great capacity, but he proves in The Greatest Showman that he still has that acting prowess that made him so popular with the High School Musical crowd.
Thankfully The Greatest Showman has some of the best pieces of music in the genre
Barnum is a complex character portrayed with a warmth by Jackman that many of his peers would’ve struggled to emulate. Elsewhere, Keala Settle wows as bearded lady, Lettie. It appears her efforts here haven’t gone unnoticed as her powerful ballad This is Me has been nominated for an Oscar at this year’s awards – and it’s well-deserving of taking the crown. She is absolutely astounding.
The brings us nicely onto the songs. A musical, as its name suggests, lives or dies on the basis of its songs and score, and thankfully The Greatest Showman has some of the best pieces of music in the genre. There isn’t a single dud in the track listing with Rewrite the Stars, performed by Zac Efron and Zendaya, and the aforementioned This is Me, sang by Keala Settle being highlights. It’s fair to say that you’ll be clapping and singing along in no time.
Pacing is also one of the film’s strongest suits. Zipping along at only 105 minutes, The Greatest Showman doesn’t mess about in throwing song after song at the audience and this is more than welcome. First-time director Michael Gracey’s shot choices are rudimentary but colour leaps off the screen throughout and the cinematography really benefits from his more static filming style.
It’s testament to the talents of Hugh Jackman and this phenomenal cast that nearly two months after the film’s theatrical release, people are still flocking to see The Greatest Showman in cinemas across the globe. And it’s easy to see why. From start to finish, it is an absolute joy to watch. With a cracking set of songs, created by La La Land’s Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, and stunning performances by each member of the cast, it’s an absolute treat for the whole family to enjoy and my first five-star film of 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/17/the-greatest-showman-review-all-the-fun-of-the-circus/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Commuter (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Liam Neeson's special set of skills return
The Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars have received over 650 votes so far and it’s proving to be the closest run awards ever. Make sure you cast your vote for the best films and performances from 2017 before March 6th.
Liam Neeson is this generation’s formidable action hero. From protecting his family in Taken and protecting his family in Run All Night, to protecting his family in Taken 2, and you know, protecting his family in Taken 3, Neeson is a family man if ever I’ve seen one.
Teaming up with director Jaume Collet-Serra for the fourth time, the rather excellent Non-Stop being their best work together, Neeson takes the action and moves it on-board, you guessed it, a commuter train. But does The Commuter work? Or are we starting to get derailed by these constant action roles?
Insurance salesman Michael (Neeson) is on his daily commute home, which quickly becomes anything but routine. After being contacted by a mysterious stranger (Vera Farmiga), Michael is forced to uncover the identity of a hidden passenger on the train before the last stop. As he works against the clock to solve the puzzle, he realizes a deadly plan is unfolding, and he is unwittingly caught up in a criminal conspiracy that carries life and death stakes for everyone on the train.
The premise is a borderline carbon copy of what we saw in Non-Stop, but with Neeson battling a series of bad guys on a train instead of in the air, and while it is at times, ridiculous, it’s directed with the usual Collet-Serra sense of style that would make even a dog food commercial look intriguing.
Where last year’s Murder on the Orient Express opted for opulence and fairly static camerawork, here The Commuter utilises every part of the train to its advantage. From underneath the carriages, to through the windows and even cleverly framed through a ticket stub, Collet-Serra’s direction is unique, if a little over-stylised at times.
Casting wise, Neeson is the perfect choice to play the world-weary protagonist with a very special set of skills, after all, it’s a role he has been playing for many years now. Some might say typecast, I prefer to think of it as knowing what he wants. Elsewhere, Vera Farmiga is a disappointingly underused presence and it would have been nice to see her a little more throughout the fairly taut 105-minute running time. It’s also nice to see Sam Neill back on the big screen and he remains dependable company.
It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG
The action is choreographed well considering the limitations of the set and while it’s clear that the carriages have been manipulated during some of the fight scenes, it’s still impressive to think of all the camera equipment being squeezed into a fairly small space. There’s always been something oddly satisfying at seeing 65-year-old Neeson taking down a group of ruffians half his age and that shows no sign of dissipating any time soon.
Unfortunately, it appears that the limitations of the set also manifested themselves in limits to the script. There are numerous scenes of Neeson pacing up and down the carriages with very little dialogue and while this worked reasonably well in Non-Stop, the result is less successful here, probably due to a less engaging supporting cast.
And while the cinematography is very clever indeed, the low budget, less than $20million in fact, means some of the CGI and special effects leave a lot to be desired, especially towards the film’s climax. It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG.
Overall, The Commuter is another thrilling slice of popcorn entertainment from Jaume Collet-Serra and Liam Neeson. At 65-years-old, you’d think everyone’s favourite Irish actor would want to be settling down into cosier rom-com territory and who could blame him? I’m just thankful he’s not. The Commuter may be utterly preposterous and completely unoriginal, but you’ll have a blast watching it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/20/the-commuter-review-liam-neesons-special-set-of-skills-return/
Liam Neeson is this generation’s formidable action hero. From protecting his family in Taken and protecting his family in Run All Night, to protecting his family in Taken 2, and you know, protecting his family in Taken 3, Neeson is a family man if ever I’ve seen one.
Teaming up with director Jaume Collet-Serra for the fourth time, the rather excellent Non-Stop being their best work together, Neeson takes the action and moves it on-board, you guessed it, a commuter train. But does The Commuter work? Or are we starting to get derailed by these constant action roles?
Insurance salesman Michael (Neeson) is on his daily commute home, which quickly becomes anything but routine. After being contacted by a mysterious stranger (Vera Farmiga), Michael is forced to uncover the identity of a hidden passenger on the train before the last stop. As he works against the clock to solve the puzzle, he realizes a deadly plan is unfolding, and he is unwittingly caught up in a criminal conspiracy that carries life and death stakes for everyone on the train.
The premise is a borderline carbon copy of what we saw in Non-Stop, but with Neeson battling a series of bad guys on a train instead of in the air, and while it is at times, ridiculous, it’s directed with the usual Collet-Serra sense of style that would make even a dog food commercial look intriguing.
Where last year’s Murder on the Orient Express opted for opulence and fairly static camerawork, here The Commuter utilises every part of the train to its advantage. From underneath the carriages, to through the windows and even cleverly framed through a ticket stub, Collet-Serra’s direction is unique, if a little over-stylised at times.
Casting wise, Neeson is the perfect choice to play the world-weary protagonist with a very special set of skills, after all, it’s a role he has been playing for many years now. Some might say typecast, I prefer to think of it as knowing what he wants. Elsewhere, Vera Farmiga is a disappointingly underused presence and it would have been nice to see her a little more throughout the fairly taut 105-minute running time. It’s also nice to see Sam Neill back on the big screen and he remains dependable company.
It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG
The action is choreographed well considering the limitations of the set and while it’s clear that the carriages have been manipulated during some of the fight scenes, it’s still impressive to think of all the camera equipment being squeezed into a fairly small space. There’s always been something oddly satisfying at seeing 65-year-old Neeson taking down a group of ruffians half his age and that shows no sign of dissipating any time soon.
Unfortunately, it appears that the limitations of the set also manifested themselves in limits to the script. There are numerous scenes of Neeson pacing up and down the carriages with very little dialogue and while this worked reasonably well in Non-Stop, the result is less successful here, probably due to a less engaging supporting cast.
And while the cinematography is very clever indeed, the low budget, less than $20million in fact, means some of the CGI and special effects leave a lot to be desired, especially towards the film’s climax. It’s a shame that Collet-Serra wasn’t given slightly more to work with as his ingenious camera trickery is at odds with the poor CG.
Overall, The Commuter is another thrilling slice of popcorn entertainment from Jaume Collet-Serra and Liam Neeson. At 65-years-old, you’d think everyone’s favourite Irish actor would want to be settling down into cosier rom-com territory and who could blame him? I’m just thankful he’s not. The Commuter may be utterly preposterous and completely unoriginal, but you’ll have a blast watching it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/20/the-commuter-review-liam-neesons-special-set-of-skills-return/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Hunger Games franchise has come at a time that is almost certain to gather box-office success. After Harry Potter finished two years ago and The Twilight Saga bowed out just 12 months ago, teenagers and young adults have been craving for a new series of blockbusters to ‘sink their teeth into’.
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018
All time classic
"I'M MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!"
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)