Search
Search results
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Whiplash (2014) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
Whiplash makes for a painfully tense and terrifying learning experience that is nothing short of cinematic brilliance. It'll have you on the edge of your seat, with your heart still pounding even after it's over.
I believe that there’s a desire in all of us to achieve greatness. A deep, internal yearning for importance, respect, and acceptance. We want to be remembered and we want to fulfill a sense of purpose in our lives. For Andrew Nieman (Miles Teller), the central character in the 2014 Best Picture nominated film Whiplash, that desire is to be one of the all-time great jazz drummers. Of course, he knows that accomplishing such a goal will require a firmly fixed focus, an uncompromising dedication, and endless hours of practice. What he surely wasn’t expecting was to run into a teacher like Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), who will stop at nothing in order to push his students to strive to be their very best. Whiplash makes for a painfully tense and terrifying learning experience that is nothing short of cinematic brilliance.
Andrew is a first-year student at the prestigious Shaffer Conservatory of Music in New York where the presence of their great head music conductor, Terence Fletcher, looms over everyone. Fletcher is well-known, respected, and feared. More importantly, he is their ticket to success as musicians. Landing a spot in his band is a coveted high honor. Earning his respect is even greater. Though under Fletcher’s guidance, success doesn’t come easy. He rules over the school like a maniacal dictator and he demands absolute perfection from his students. After all, he has a highly revered reputation to preserve, and he’s not about to let anyone jeopardize it. Andrew finds himself lucky enough to be chosen to rehearse with Fletcher’s band, but he’s soon tested, humiliated, abused, and pushed to the limit by his short-tempered instructor.
Already something of a loner, Andrew delves even deeper within due to pressure from his teacher, turning his passion for music into an unhealthy obsession. He cuts off contact with others and devotes himself entirely to practicing. With fingers bloodied from extensive drumming, he simply bandages them up and keeps at it. Not only is his music playing taking control of his life, but it’s also clearly taking a toll on his mental health. Even more troubling for Andrew is that no matter how hard he tries, Fletcher is never satisfied, and he torments his students until they get things right, even if it means practicing all night. Resentment and tension rapidly rise for Andrew as he approaches his breaking point, resulting in the film’s unforgettably tense conclusion.
Whiplash is no walk in the park. It will have you sitting on the edge of your seat in suspense and terror, with your heart still pounding even after it’s over. It’s an emotional horror for young Andrew who is put through Hell by his mad musical conductor. I was legitimately in fear for his life and sanity. While the movie has given me a greater respect for musicians, and jazz bands in particular, it sure makes me feel glad that I was never in band!
Whiplash is remarkable in its design and execution. The film’s cinematography shows a wonderfully adept eye for camera angles, and gives this low-budget film a distinguished look. The director revels in the closeness of the scene, putting us right alongside Andrew as he comes face-to-face with the ever-menacing Fletcher. It’s unbelievably tense and uncomfortable to watch while he’s being verbally and physically assaulted right before your eyes. The film’s Oscar-winning editing finds the right tempo with knowing when to cut and when to linger. It also expertly accompanies the music with its barrage of clear, fast-paced shots. Of course, Whiplash is also very respectful to its music sources, and it does an amazing job in showcasing the outrageous musical talent on display.
The performances from Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons are sensational. It is estimated that roughly forty percent of the drumming you see by Andrew in Whiplash was actually performed by Teller. Considering the ridiculous amount of skill involved in these jazz band classics, that statistic should not be understated in the least. Teller puts on an incredible display and pours his heart into this movie. He carries the film, appearing in every single scene, and makes for a believable transition of character under the strict discipline of Fletcher. Even more extraordinary is J.K. Simmons, who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor with this performance. Simmons injects his character with an intense ferocity that demands your attention. He terrorizes his musicians while conducting with an iron fist. Yet there’s far more to his character than just being a bully. While I disagreed with his abusive methods, I couldn’t argue against his intended result. His character’s extreme conduct will no doubt take things too far for some viewers, but despite all of his anger, I still found Fletcher to be remarkably fascinating. In the end, as deserving of hatred as he may be, I couldn’t help but feel some level of respect for him, and I think that really speaks to the quality of the film.
Whiplash is an emotionally stirring masterpiece that questions how much is too much when it comes to pushing someone to be their best. It also explores the emotional and psychological harm that can result from that level of pressure and abuse. The movie is bolstered by two tense and energetic performances from Miles and Simmons, who are deserving of all of their praise and accolades. You don’t have to be a fan of jazz music to enjoy this phenomenal film. I found the music to be intoxicating, but the real strength of the movie is the teacher and student dynamic between Andrew and Fletcher. With a diabolically delightful and brilliant ending, these two characters have achieved an esteemed level of movie greatness that make Whiplash a must-see!
Andrew is a first-year student at the prestigious Shaffer Conservatory of Music in New York where the presence of their great head music conductor, Terence Fletcher, looms over everyone. Fletcher is well-known, respected, and feared. More importantly, he is their ticket to success as musicians. Landing a spot in his band is a coveted high honor. Earning his respect is even greater. Though under Fletcher’s guidance, success doesn’t come easy. He rules over the school like a maniacal dictator and he demands absolute perfection from his students. After all, he has a highly revered reputation to preserve, and he’s not about to let anyone jeopardize it. Andrew finds himself lucky enough to be chosen to rehearse with Fletcher’s band, but he’s soon tested, humiliated, abused, and pushed to the limit by his short-tempered instructor.
Already something of a loner, Andrew delves even deeper within due to pressure from his teacher, turning his passion for music into an unhealthy obsession. He cuts off contact with others and devotes himself entirely to practicing. With fingers bloodied from extensive drumming, he simply bandages them up and keeps at it. Not only is his music playing taking control of his life, but it’s also clearly taking a toll on his mental health. Even more troubling for Andrew is that no matter how hard he tries, Fletcher is never satisfied, and he torments his students until they get things right, even if it means practicing all night. Resentment and tension rapidly rise for Andrew as he approaches his breaking point, resulting in the film’s unforgettably tense conclusion.
Whiplash is no walk in the park. It will have you sitting on the edge of your seat in suspense and terror, with your heart still pounding even after it’s over. It’s an emotional horror for young Andrew who is put through Hell by his mad musical conductor. I was legitimately in fear for his life and sanity. While the movie has given me a greater respect for musicians, and jazz bands in particular, it sure makes me feel glad that I was never in band!
Whiplash is remarkable in its design and execution. The film’s cinematography shows a wonderfully adept eye for camera angles, and gives this low-budget film a distinguished look. The director revels in the closeness of the scene, putting us right alongside Andrew as he comes face-to-face with the ever-menacing Fletcher. It’s unbelievably tense and uncomfortable to watch while he’s being verbally and physically assaulted right before your eyes. The film’s Oscar-winning editing finds the right tempo with knowing when to cut and when to linger. It also expertly accompanies the music with its barrage of clear, fast-paced shots. Of course, Whiplash is also very respectful to its music sources, and it does an amazing job in showcasing the outrageous musical talent on display.
The performances from Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons are sensational. It is estimated that roughly forty percent of the drumming you see by Andrew in Whiplash was actually performed by Teller. Considering the ridiculous amount of skill involved in these jazz band classics, that statistic should not be understated in the least. Teller puts on an incredible display and pours his heart into this movie. He carries the film, appearing in every single scene, and makes for a believable transition of character under the strict discipline of Fletcher. Even more extraordinary is J.K. Simmons, who won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor with this performance. Simmons injects his character with an intense ferocity that demands your attention. He terrorizes his musicians while conducting with an iron fist. Yet there’s far more to his character than just being a bully. While I disagreed with his abusive methods, I couldn’t argue against his intended result. His character’s extreme conduct will no doubt take things too far for some viewers, but despite all of his anger, I still found Fletcher to be remarkably fascinating. In the end, as deserving of hatred as he may be, I couldn’t help but feel some level of respect for him, and I think that really speaks to the quality of the film.
Whiplash is an emotionally stirring masterpiece that questions how much is too much when it comes to pushing someone to be their best. It also explores the emotional and psychological harm that can result from that level of pressure and abuse. The movie is bolstered by two tense and energetic performances from Miles and Simmons, who are deserving of all of their praise and accolades. You don’t have to be a fan of jazz music to enjoy this phenomenal film. I found the music to be intoxicating, but the real strength of the movie is the teacher and student dynamic between Andrew and Fletcher. With a diabolically delightful and brilliant ending, these two characters have achieved an esteemed level of movie greatness that make Whiplash a must-see!
Neil Goddard (3 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Feb 27, 2020
It all looked soooo promising
Contains spoilers, click to show
Let me say this upfront; David Harbour looks f---ing boss as Hellboy. The makeup is far superior to that of Ron Perlman, not that there was anything wrong with Ron Perlman’s, but with this new incarnation it’s all in the eyes. Deep red, sunken, pained. Sadly, that is all I can say about this movie that is one hundred percent genuinely positive. There are positives however, but they come with a big ‘however’.
I was initially a little concerned that we were getting a re-boot and not a direct sequel to Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008), especially as it still seemed so recent and was so well made. I know it was over a decade ago but quality is timeless, yeah? Then David Harbour was cast and Neil Marshall announced as director. Great, thought I, an actor I like and a director who’s put out some solid genre material. I saw the first picture of Harbour as Hellboy and I was genuinely excited. I saw the trailer and again, excited. Then I watched the film.
Eurgh, where to start?
Firstly, Ian McShane’s initial voice over is clunky and ill fitting, then they throw in some b@llocks about King Arthur and Excalibur. I had my first wobble here, as some of the effects seemed less than special.
Cue opening titles.
The film starts with a Mexican wrestling match that is purely exposition to let us know Hellboy is a hard drinking and hard fighting anti-hero working for an organisation that deals with the paranormal. The make up for his vampiric opponent is also great (can’t fault the makeup department), but the scene seemed superfluous. We get the nubbin of the story forming now; some horrible witchy wench from way back when was cut into bits and flung around jolly old England to prevent her from spreading a right ‘orrible plague. Turns out a potty-mouthed Liverpudlian pig-monster is collecting said bits in the hope of putting her back together in exchange for his normal appearance. Scouse pig-monster is quite entertaining.
Hellboy goes to England at the request of an upper-class paranormal society to help them kill giants; this goes t1ts up. Again, this seems like unnecessary exposition to introduce Alice, a medium who he rescued as a baby, who now rescues him in a transit van. We also get introduced to M11’s Agent Daimio. There something wrong with him, he keeps injecting himself with a serum to stop something happening. I knew at this point we’d get to see what it was eventually, probably at a juncture where something is needed to rescue someone important. However, at this point I had a feeling it would be bad, I just didn’t know how bad.
There some more fighting, some good effects, some mediocre effects and some terrible effects. There’s some good one-liners, there’s some dull and/or terrible dialogue and then we get the film’s conclusion.
There’s something I’ve been putting off mentioning as I didn’t want the entire review to be about it, and it could have been; the witchy wench at the heart of all this paranormal consternation, Nimue, is played by Milla Jovovich and she is terrible. From when she first opens her mouth to her predictable demise, she is terrible. Terrible. TERRIBLE.
I love some of the Resident Evil films but all she’s required to do is some slow-motion scissor kicks and shoot zombies and zombie-dogs in the face. She is tolerated, rather than enjoyed. Here she is emoting, or at least I think that’s what she was going for, and as a depiction of an evil entity bent of the destruction of all mankind, she is, for want of a better word, cack.
David Harbour and the Hellboy franchise deserve better than this. To be blunt, the franchise has better than this and Mike Mignola should be a bit more f---ing precious with his creation.
Hellboy (2004) was genuinely exciting; it was an origin story that bought that story full circle for its thrilling and apocalyptical conclusion. It has a wonderful nemesis, great support and breath-taking visuals. The re-tread of the origin story in Hellboy (2019) is, again, one more unnecessary diversion from a sketchy plot, which, for all its meagre bones takes a f-ck load of time to tell.
Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008) was equally impressive. It also introduced a fully formed community of creatures and customs hiding alongside mankind. It did so with nonchalant aplomb. Nothing seemed irrelevant or forced. For two films with almost identical running times, Hellboy (2019) tells less of a story with way more waffle.
So, I did mention there were some positives. David Harbour is great. He’s dour, sarcastic, defiant and funny, he just has no engaging story in which to be all those things. Ian McShane is good as the father figure but he is overshadowed by memories of the late, unbelievably great John Hurt. The story of a witch trying to destroy mankind is solid fantasy movie gold and the unleashing of her plague late in the final act is suitably hellish; bizarre demons emerging from city streets and tearing humans limb from limb, it’s bloody wonderful and wonderfully bloody. They all could have come straight out of a Clive Barker fever dream. However, it’s too little too late, by this point in the story we’ve had too many cutaways, too much shoddy CGI, and Agent Daimio stinking up many a scene with his ‘will he won’t he’ turn into something rubbish… he does.
The worst part of all this is I don’t know if they can come back from this. The film may have sunk the franchise at least for the next few years.
I do however, look forward to a re-boot in a decade or so, if we haven’t all been assimilated by aliens, overrun by AI robots or decimated by a supernatural plague bought on by some witchy wench with an axe to grind.
THREE WORD SUMMATION: Big Red Turd.
I was initially a little concerned that we were getting a re-boot and not a direct sequel to Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008), especially as it still seemed so recent and was so well made. I know it was over a decade ago but quality is timeless, yeah? Then David Harbour was cast and Neil Marshall announced as director. Great, thought I, an actor I like and a director who’s put out some solid genre material. I saw the first picture of Harbour as Hellboy and I was genuinely excited. I saw the trailer and again, excited. Then I watched the film.
Eurgh, where to start?
Firstly, Ian McShane’s initial voice over is clunky and ill fitting, then they throw in some b@llocks about King Arthur and Excalibur. I had my first wobble here, as some of the effects seemed less than special.
Cue opening titles.
The film starts with a Mexican wrestling match that is purely exposition to let us know Hellboy is a hard drinking and hard fighting anti-hero working for an organisation that deals with the paranormal. The make up for his vampiric opponent is also great (can’t fault the makeup department), but the scene seemed superfluous. We get the nubbin of the story forming now; some horrible witchy wench from way back when was cut into bits and flung around jolly old England to prevent her from spreading a right ‘orrible plague. Turns out a potty-mouthed Liverpudlian pig-monster is collecting said bits in the hope of putting her back together in exchange for his normal appearance. Scouse pig-monster is quite entertaining.
Hellboy goes to England at the request of an upper-class paranormal society to help them kill giants; this goes t1ts up. Again, this seems like unnecessary exposition to introduce Alice, a medium who he rescued as a baby, who now rescues him in a transit van. We also get introduced to M11’s Agent Daimio. There something wrong with him, he keeps injecting himself with a serum to stop something happening. I knew at this point we’d get to see what it was eventually, probably at a juncture where something is needed to rescue someone important. However, at this point I had a feeling it would be bad, I just didn’t know how bad.
There some more fighting, some good effects, some mediocre effects and some terrible effects. There’s some good one-liners, there’s some dull and/or terrible dialogue and then we get the film’s conclusion.
There’s something I’ve been putting off mentioning as I didn’t want the entire review to be about it, and it could have been; the witchy wench at the heart of all this paranormal consternation, Nimue, is played by Milla Jovovich and she is terrible. From when she first opens her mouth to her predictable demise, she is terrible. Terrible. TERRIBLE.
I love some of the Resident Evil films but all she’s required to do is some slow-motion scissor kicks and shoot zombies and zombie-dogs in the face. She is tolerated, rather than enjoyed. Here she is emoting, or at least I think that’s what she was going for, and as a depiction of an evil entity bent of the destruction of all mankind, she is, for want of a better word, cack.
David Harbour and the Hellboy franchise deserve better than this. To be blunt, the franchise has better than this and Mike Mignola should be a bit more f---ing precious with his creation.
Hellboy (2004) was genuinely exciting; it was an origin story that bought that story full circle for its thrilling and apocalyptical conclusion. It has a wonderful nemesis, great support and breath-taking visuals. The re-tread of the origin story in Hellboy (2019) is, again, one more unnecessary diversion from a sketchy plot, which, for all its meagre bones takes a f-ck load of time to tell.
Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008) was equally impressive. It also introduced a fully formed community of creatures and customs hiding alongside mankind. It did so with nonchalant aplomb. Nothing seemed irrelevant or forced. For two films with almost identical running times, Hellboy (2019) tells less of a story with way more waffle.
So, I did mention there were some positives. David Harbour is great. He’s dour, sarcastic, defiant and funny, he just has no engaging story in which to be all those things. Ian McShane is good as the father figure but he is overshadowed by memories of the late, unbelievably great John Hurt. The story of a witch trying to destroy mankind is solid fantasy movie gold and the unleashing of her plague late in the final act is suitably hellish; bizarre demons emerging from city streets and tearing humans limb from limb, it’s bloody wonderful and wonderfully bloody. They all could have come straight out of a Clive Barker fever dream. However, it’s too little too late, by this point in the story we’ve had too many cutaways, too much shoddy CGI, and Agent Daimio stinking up many a scene with his ‘will he won’t he’ turn into something rubbish… he does.
The worst part of all this is I don’t know if they can come back from this. The film may have sunk the franchise at least for the next few years.
I do however, look forward to a re-boot in a decade or so, if we haven’t all been assimilated by aliens, overrun by AI robots or decimated by a supernatural plague bought on by some witchy wench with an axe to grind.
THREE WORD SUMMATION: Big Red Turd.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Roma (2018) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
I watched Roma exactly a week ago today. And although I knew 20 minutes in that I loved it, and at the end that I really loved it, I have taken that time to let it settle within me in before coming to write about it. Some films are so good that you have to do that: let it sink into you fully, before doing anything so trivial as judging and comparing them. Roma is incomparable! I have never seen anything like it, or felt as deeply moved by a film in a long time.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Not that it didn’t get attention at the time of its release, it did, receiving 10 Oscar nominations and winning 3, for best foreign language film, director and cinematography, but it certainly wasn’t seen by as many people as it should have been, despite its presence on Netflix from the start. Having digested it now, and spending some time reading about how and why it was made, I feel a slight mission to recommend it to as many people as I can.
Based on Alfonso Cuarón’s own childhood in Mexico City, and his memories of his family and especially their housemaid, Liboria (Libo) Rodriguez, to whom the film is dedicated, it is a masterpiece labour of love that few directors ever achieve or even attempt to make. After a strong career of exceptional films, including Y Tu Mamá También, Children of Men and Gravity, it was the box office and critical success of the latter that gave Cuarón carte blanche to go and make whatever project he chose. Where many might have been tempted by the big money of superhero or fantasy movies (for which he had some experience with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) he went back to his roots and shot a very personal non-English film, in black and white, where no music exists except that which occurs naturally, and on the surface not much happens.
At least it feels like not much is happening, such is the naturalistic, almost improvised (although it wasn’t) style and pace; shot with a lens capturing detail and nuance with some of the most beautiful photography I have ever had the privilege to see. Truly, an awful lot is happening, but you have to feel and experience it, not simply be told it by the narrative. It takes a while for our Hollywood conditioned brains to accept this at first, and many might come to it and give up half an hour in because of that challenge. I can promise, however, there is not a single thing boring about this film, unless humanity is boring.
Oscar nominated lead Yalitza Aparicio as the shy, loving maid, Cleo, was not an actor before this film. She auditioned and was hand picked by Cuarón from hundreds of young women, without knowing who he was or what the film was about. Apparently, the film was shot in sequence so as not to confuse her emotionally on her extraordinary journey. She is so unassuming and natural that part of you falls in love with her immediately. In time, we almost come to forget we are watching an act at all, and almost become her, such is the empathy she evokes.
Which isn’t an easy ride, as we watch her be gently and then cruelly ignored, mistreated and used; climaxing in one of the most astonishingly painful and jaw-dropping scenes imaginable, and then a scene of such powerful redemption and humanity it instantly breaks the heart and lifts the soul. All the while she never asks for attention or love, but is just herself: a young woman living a difficult but beautiful life in a country and time full of turmoil, prejudice and social change.
The recreation of Mexico in 1970 is so breathtaking, it is hard to imagine at times we are not watching a documentary from that era. But, it is the detail the lens chooses to capture that reminds you this is a visual poem and a love-letter to a time, a place and a family far away in history and the memory of one man (represented by ten year old Carlos Peralta as Paco). At times it evokes the work of the very greatest film artists of all time: Bergman, Fellini, Hitchcock etc. Not one image is wasted or insignificant, from the reflection of the sky in water, to the dog-shit constantly lining the driveway. Everything is chosen and meaningful in the full context of the work.
There is no awkward exposition, no dramatic moments milked for all they are worth, no sequences of heightened excitement that manipulate us; simply truthful moments that hang in the air for what they are, leaving us to decide how we relate to them without ever preaching or teaching us how. In that way, it is a work of such maturity that I doubt many living directors could emulate it at all. The closest comparison I can think of is the personal passion Spielberg put into Shindler’s List, but really it is a moot comparison, and in fact owes much more to films like Haneke’s The White Ribbon.
Can it be faulted? Well, yes, certainly. But, honestly, I don’t see the point in trying. It is as close to perfection a small story of this kind can be. Importantly, I think it is an open film, that allows us to take from it whatever we like, relating to our own experiences and cares. For me, it said that any pain and hardship can be overcome, as long as there is love and beauty walking by its side. A message of no small importance. If you haven’t seen it, I urge you to do so. If you have, then please keep spreading the word. I believe it to be a genuine classic that will endure the criticism of many decades to come. Without a doubt in my mind something very special indeed.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Welcome to Miami - again!
Will Smith seems to have been having a lacklustre period in his career. His genie from "Aladdin" got a rather lukewarm reception. And his last movie - "Gemini Man" - billed as a big summer blockbuster - failed to impress. True it wasn't a commercial disaster (raking in at the time of writing about 150% of budget), but it's still a film on a plane for me that, even if I'm bored, I'll say "nah" to.
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Tarantino makes good movies, I like them, but I don't love them. When everyone was raving about the OUATIH trailer I was sitting back going "that looks okay, but..." I wasn't sure I could see how they were going to mix the two strands of the story together, or why. After seeing it I'm still not sure.
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A fantasy that’s glossy and beautiful to look at.
Before the heavyweight juggernaut of “Mary Poppins Returns” arrives at Christmas, here’s another Disney live action feature to get everyone in the festive spirit.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
The Plot.
It’s Victorian London and Young Clara (Mackenzie Foy) lives with her father (Matthew Macfadyen), her older sister Louise (Ellie Bamber) and her younger brother Fritz (Tom Sweet). It’s Christmas and the family are having a hard time as they are grieving the recent death of wife and mother Marie (Anna Madeley). Like her mother, Clara has an astute mind with an engineering bias and is encouraged in this pursuit by her quirky inventor godfather, Drosselmeyer (Morgan Freeman). At his fabled Christmas ball, Clara asks for his help in accessing a gift Clara’s mother has bequeathed to her. This leads Clara on a magical adventure to a parallel world with four realms, where everything is not quite peace and harmony.
The Review.
This is a film that visually delights from the word go. The film opens with a swooping tour of Victorian London (who knew the Disney castle was in the capital’s suburbs?!) via Westminster bridge and into the Stahlbaum’s attic. It’s a spectacular tour-de-force of special-effects wizardry and sets up the expectation of what’s to come. For every scene that follows is a richly decorated feast for the eyes. Drosselmeyer’s party is a glorious event, full of extras, strong on costume design and with a rich colour palette as filmed by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“). When we are pitched into the Four Realms – no wardrobe required – the magical visions continue.
The film represents a Narnia-esque take on the four compass-point lands of Oz, and on that basis it’s a bit formulaic. But the good vs evil angles are more subtley portrayed. Of the Four Realms leaders, Keira Knightley as Sugar Plum rather steals the show from the others (played by Richard E. Grant, Eugenio Derbez and Helen Mirren). Mirren in particular is given little to do.
What age kids would this be suitable for? Well, probably a good judge would be the Wizard of Oz. If your kids are not completely freaked out by the Wicked Witch of the West and the flying monkeys, then they will probably cope OK with the scary bits of the “Realm of Entertainment”. Although those who suffer from either musophobia or (especially) coulrophobia might want to give it a miss! All kids are different though, and the “loss of the mother” is also an angle to consider: that might worry and upset young children. It is definitely a “PG” certificate rather than a “U” certificate.
Young people who also enjoy ballet (I nearly fell into a sexist trap there!) will also get a kick out of some of the dance sequences, which are “Fantasia-esque” in their presentation and feature Misty Copeland, famously the first African American Female Principal Dancer with the American Ballet Theatre. (I have no appreciation at all for ballet, but I’m sure it was brilliant!)
As for the moral tone of the film, the female empowerment message is rather ladled on with a trowel, but as it’s a good message I have no great problem with that. I am often appalled at how lacking in confidence young people are in their own abilities. Here is a young lady (an engineer!) learning self-resilience and the confidence to be able to do anything in life she puts her mind to. Well said.
The story is rather generic – child visits a magical other world – but the screenplay is impressive given its the first-feature screenplay for Ashleigh Powell: there is an article on her approach to screenwriting that you might find interesting here.
The film is credited with two directors. This – particularly if there is also an army of screenwriters – is normally a warning sign on a film. (As a case in point, the chaotic 1967 version of “Casino Royale” had six different directors, and it shows!). Here, there clearly were issues with the filming since Disney insisted on reshoots for which the original director, Lasse Hallström, was not available. This is where the “Captain America” director Joe Johnston stepped in.
The turns.
I really enjoyed Mackenzie Foy‘s performance as Clara. Now 18, she is a feisty and believable Disney princess for the modern age. (If, like me, you are struggling to place where you’ve heard her name before, she was the young Murph in Nolan’s “Interstellar“).
Another name I was struggling with was Ellie Bamber as her sister. Ellie was excellent in the traumatic role of the daughter in the brilliant “Nocturnal Animals“, one of my favourite films of 2016. (Hopefully the therapy has worked and Ellie can sleep at night again!).
A newcomer with a big role is Jayden Fowora-Knight as the Nutcracker soldier: Jayden had a bit part in “Ready Player One” but does a great job here in a substantial role in the film. He stands out as a black actor in a Disney feature: notwithstanding the Finn character in “Star Wars”, this is a long-overdue and welcome approach from Disney.
British comedians Omid Djalili and Jack Whitehouse turn up to add some light relief, but the humour seems rather forced and not particularly fitting.
Final thoughts
I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one much, but I did. Prinicipally because it is such a visual feast and worth going to see just for that alone: I have a prediction that this film will be nominated for production design, costume design and possible special effects.
I think kids of the right age – I would have thought 6 to 10 sort of range – will enjoy this a lot, particularly if they like dance. Young girls in particular will most relate to the lead character. For such kids, I’d rate this a 4*. The rating below reflects my rating as an adult: so I don’t think ‘drag-a-long’ parents in the Christmas holidays (if it is still on by then) will not be totally bored.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Free Guy (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021 (Updated Dec 14, 2021)
Taika Waititi. (2 more)
The cameos.
Impressive special effects.
Not as funny as it could have been. (2 more)
Love being the "hokey" solution.
Mouser.
Artificial Excellence
Filmed in 2019 and finally seeing release after five separate delays from its original July 2020 premiere date, Free Guy is a sci-fi action comedy directed by Shawn Levy (Real Steal, the Night at the Museum trilogy) and written by Matt Lieberman (Scoob!) and Zak Penn (Ready Player One), which follows the life of Guy (Ryan Reynolds), an NPC that and lives and works as a bank teller in Free City.
Completely content with every day being exactly the same as the day before, Guy’s life is changed forever following a chance encounter with a ‘Sunglasses Person’ (the film’s term for player characters) named Molotov Girl (Jodie Comer).
An homage to Grand Theft Auto’s Vice City, with some elements from Fortnite sprinkled in for good measure, Free City is located within a video game of the same name, and boasts a population of various NPCs (non-player characters) as they go through their daily routines completely unaware that they’re stuck within the confines of a video game.
These NPCs cater to the whim of the Sunglasses People, who are seen as unapproachable heroes, but in actuality are just players from the real world who want to loot, steal, and cause chaos in order to achieve virtual richness in free city.
Ryan Reynolds’ real-life demeanor and sense of humor are so similar to his portrayal of Deadpool that almost anything Reynolds has done since 2016 has undoubtedly reminded you of The Merc With A Mouth.
To that end, in Free Guy, Reynolds’ narration of his own story, combined with the film’s explosive action, will definitely have filmgoers reminiscing about Marvel’s pair of R-rated X-men spin-offs – an inevitable circumstance of being a successful actor and allowing oneself to be typecast into roles similar to their most popular one.
While there are some laugh out loud moments in Free Guy, the “Oh, he found the button,” scene being the most notable, the film simply isn’t as funny as you think it’s going to be.
There’s no arguing that Free Guy is amusing to a certain extent, but its repeated gags and attempts at humor, more often than not, fall flat. Taika Waititi’s Antwan character, the man calling the shots when it comes to Free City’s game development, is a highlight of the film.
However, the promotional clip of Waititi’s outtakes released to hype the film, whose content supposedly made it into the film (spoiler alert: they didn’t), is better than any of Antwan’s actual lines of dialogue in the theatrical cut.
The cameos in Free Guy are some of the best surprises to stumble onto while seeing the film. They won’t be spoiled here, though some of them have been spoiled on the internet already, but there are a couple of really fun ones that are so much more entertaining if you go in not expecting them.
In fact, one of the lengthier such cameos, which extends across multiple scenes and features in several minutes of screen time, is a major source for hilarity in Free Guy.
The premise of Free Guy a A background character in a video game becomes sentient – is its most promising aspect. Guy, motivated by a desire to get more out of life than the daily routine he’s accustomed to, essentially betters himself simply because he wants to. In a way, it’s an I, Robot kind of concept burrito’d within a world that would fit within the walls of Ready Player One.
Surprisingly, given its filming before the outbreak of the pandemic, the film is also extremely relatable to how our reality is still under the thumb of an unpredictable coronavirus. Guy being trapped within the walls of Free City and wanting more out of life is an awfully similar sentiment to wanting everything back to normal after being stuck in months-long lockdowns.
Yet, Free Guy’s solid special effects, absurd humor, and surprisingly effective cameos are nearly derailed by how much time it devotes to the its love story.
Guy’s big awakening all comes down to finding the girl of his dreams, which then branches off into a different sort of relationship in the real world that was right under two character’s noses from the start. It feels like it was meant to be this sort of revelation in the film, but comes off as this, “Duh,” moment anyone besides the writers could have predicted.
Speaking of the film’s writing, the character of Mouser (Utkarsh Ambudkar) is so poorly written that it’s unbearable and exhausting.
A developer working alongside Antwan and Keys (Joe Kerry), Mouser comes off a rival to the later, acting like he can do Keys’ job better than Keys can and constantly breaking his balls from the moment he is introduced. Throughout the film, Mouser wants to do nothing more than whatever Antwan says, even if it’s morally reprehensible.
But, predictably, in the film’s final moments, Mouser is suddenly Keys’ best friend, wanting to do what’s right all for the sake of a happy ending.
Ultimately, while Free Guy has an amazing concept, it’s trapped within a massively underwhelming execution.
Admittedly, the film looks like it was an absolute blast to make, but also incredibly expensive. This tall budget, combined with public hesitancy to return to theaters and the Delta variant of COVID seemingly on the verge of backtracking all the progress we’ve made since the vaccine became readily available to the public, it makes you wonder if Free Guy has any sort of chance of making a respectable amount of money at the box office or even just breaking even.
Note: This was originally written when the film opened in theaters. Free Guy would go on to make $331.5 million on a $100-$125 million budget. A sequel is currently in the works.
Completely content with every day being exactly the same as the day before, Guy’s life is changed forever following a chance encounter with a ‘Sunglasses Person’ (the film’s term for player characters) named Molotov Girl (Jodie Comer).
An homage to Grand Theft Auto’s Vice City, with some elements from Fortnite sprinkled in for good measure, Free City is located within a video game of the same name, and boasts a population of various NPCs (non-player characters) as they go through their daily routines completely unaware that they’re stuck within the confines of a video game.
These NPCs cater to the whim of the Sunglasses People, who are seen as unapproachable heroes, but in actuality are just players from the real world who want to loot, steal, and cause chaos in order to achieve virtual richness in free city.
Ryan Reynolds’ real-life demeanor and sense of humor are so similar to his portrayal of Deadpool that almost anything Reynolds has done since 2016 has undoubtedly reminded you of The Merc With A Mouth.
To that end, in Free Guy, Reynolds’ narration of his own story, combined with the film’s explosive action, will definitely have filmgoers reminiscing about Marvel’s pair of R-rated X-men spin-offs – an inevitable circumstance of being a successful actor and allowing oneself to be typecast into roles similar to their most popular one.
While there are some laugh out loud moments in Free Guy, the “Oh, he found the button,” scene being the most notable, the film simply isn’t as funny as you think it’s going to be.
There’s no arguing that Free Guy is amusing to a certain extent, but its repeated gags and attempts at humor, more often than not, fall flat. Taika Waititi’s Antwan character, the man calling the shots when it comes to Free City’s game development, is a highlight of the film.
However, the promotional clip of Waititi’s outtakes released to hype the film, whose content supposedly made it into the film (spoiler alert: they didn’t), is better than any of Antwan’s actual lines of dialogue in the theatrical cut.
The cameos in Free Guy are some of the best surprises to stumble onto while seeing the film. They won’t be spoiled here, though some of them have been spoiled on the internet already, but there are a couple of really fun ones that are so much more entertaining if you go in not expecting them.
In fact, one of the lengthier such cameos, which extends across multiple scenes and features in several minutes of screen time, is a major source for hilarity in Free Guy.
The premise of Free Guy a A background character in a video game becomes sentient – is its most promising aspect. Guy, motivated by a desire to get more out of life than the daily routine he’s accustomed to, essentially betters himself simply because he wants to. In a way, it’s an I, Robot kind of concept burrito’d within a world that would fit within the walls of Ready Player One.
Surprisingly, given its filming before the outbreak of the pandemic, the film is also extremely relatable to how our reality is still under the thumb of an unpredictable coronavirus. Guy being trapped within the walls of Free City and wanting more out of life is an awfully similar sentiment to wanting everything back to normal after being stuck in months-long lockdowns.
Yet, Free Guy’s solid special effects, absurd humor, and surprisingly effective cameos are nearly derailed by how much time it devotes to the its love story.
Guy’s big awakening all comes down to finding the girl of his dreams, which then branches off into a different sort of relationship in the real world that was right under two character’s noses from the start. It feels like it was meant to be this sort of revelation in the film, but comes off as this, “Duh,” moment anyone besides the writers could have predicted.
Speaking of the film’s writing, the character of Mouser (Utkarsh Ambudkar) is so poorly written that it’s unbearable and exhausting.
A developer working alongside Antwan and Keys (Joe Kerry), Mouser comes off a rival to the later, acting like he can do Keys’ job better than Keys can and constantly breaking his balls from the moment he is introduced. Throughout the film, Mouser wants to do nothing more than whatever Antwan says, even if it’s morally reprehensible.
But, predictably, in the film’s final moments, Mouser is suddenly Keys’ best friend, wanting to do what’s right all for the sake of a happy ending.
Ultimately, while Free Guy has an amazing concept, it’s trapped within a massively underwhelming execution.
Admittedly, the film looks like it was an absolute blast to make, but also incredibly expensive. This tall budget, combined with public hesitancy to return to theaters and the Delta variant of COVID seemingly on the verge of backtracking all the progress we’ve made since the vaccine became readily available to the public, it makes you wonder if Free Guy has any sort of chance of making a respectable amount of money at the box office or even just breaking even.
Note: This was originally written when the film opened in theaters. Free Guy would go on to make $331.5 million on a $100-$125 million budget. A sequel is currently in the works.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021
Tom Hardy's performance. (2 more)
Better CGI than the first film.
The film is stupidly fun.
It is REALLY dumb. (2 more)
Shriek is a wasted character.
Woody Harrelson's "hair."
Idiotic Gold
Venom was an unlikely hit for Sony Pictures making over $850 million worldwide – despite being a sloppy mess of a film.
Written by Jeff Pinkner (Jumanji (2019), The Dark Tower), Scott Rosenberg (Con Air, Gone in 60 Seconds), and Kelly Marcel (Cruella, Fifty Shades of Grey), the first Venom film boasted cheesy 90s dialogue, ugly, blobby CGI/special effects sequences, and a wacky performance from Tom Hardy.
However, its sequel – Venom: Let There Be Carnage – is essentially the restaurant/lobster tank sequence from the first film stretched across 90-minutes of absurdity.
If you revisit Venom before watching Venom: Let There Be Carnage – and more specifically, the end credits sequence from the first film – the difference between the two is almost night and day. At the end of the last film, Eddie showed a calm, confident demeanor totally confident in his demeanor when interviewing Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson).
However, in the actual sequel itself, Eddie is back to looking sick, sweating profusely, and constantly fidgeting while talking to Cletus, obviously showing signs that his attempts to keep Venom under control have taken a toll on him.
Meanwhile, it seems as though the filmmakers couldn’t decide on how to style Harrelson’s red-haired wig for the film, as it humorously changes in appearance nearly every time Cletus is on screen.
Not learning anything from Anne’s (Michelle Williams) decision to leave him in the first film, Venom: Let There Be Carnage sees Eddie attempting to cover Cletus as a way to right his struggling journalism career.
But after Cletus gets a taste of Eddie’s blood, he becomes Carnage, the unpredictable and murderous son of the symbiote.
Kelly Marcell is the only writer from the first film to return, but the sequel mark’s Tom Hardy first feature film writing credit. Hardy contributed a ton of material regarding the intricacies of Venom and Eddie’s relationship – and it shows, as because they obviously know each other very well, the two drive each other crazy and argue like an old married couple.
For example, Venom is sick of eating chickens and being restrained by Eddie’s rules, and throws weird, symbiotic tantrums when he doesn’t get his way, acting very much like a child who isn’t able to play with their favorite toy or eat their favorite candy.
What’s intriguing about Venom and Eddie’s relationship is that it’s complicated, to say the least. There are homosexual undertones in the film, with Venom seemingly having his own ‘coming out party’ and even confessing his love for Eddie, but most of the film’s romantic undertones deal with both Eddie and Venom’s desire to win back Annie – the former because he’s still in love with her, and the latter because he wants Eddie to be happy, as the two humans are better together than they are apart.
It’s not as awkward as Eddie and Venom having a baby in the comics, but it’s still a peculiar way to go about exploring their relationship. Yet, it kind of works with the overall hectic and fast paced nature of the film.
The sequel also features an overall improvement in CGI and special effects, with Venom appearing more detailed in both the black, sleeker, and shinier parts of his body and his head, while his teeth have so much more detail than they did in his first outing.
Carnage being red also allows the audience to decipher what’s occurring on screen so much easier than in the first film, whose final fight between Venom and Riot is a horrid mess of two gray and black symbiotes that kind of just mashes them together into an indistinguishable blob of CGI and hopes that the audience’s imagination can do most of the heavy lifting.
Notably, there’s also a ton of fire in Let There Be Carnage, an ambient background addition which adds additional light sources and makes the action so much easier for your eyes to process.
The transformation sequences are special effects masterpieces because they have almost a werewolf kind of aspect to them – those in-between animations of Tom Hardy’s and Woody Harrelson’s faces being half transformed go a long way.
In particular, Carnage’s introduction is a pretty incredible display, as he causes a ton of mayhem and kills a massive amount of people. However, there is one lame aspect of Carnage’s CGI appearance, which is the goofy ‘tornado’ he turns into to as he violently sweep across his prison block – thankfully, however, it’s a simple thing to look past.
As for the Shriek (Naomie Harris)/Officer Mulligan (Stephen Graham), her entire side story is ultimately unnecessary. Shriek is only included in the film because of her ability to scream, and thus hurt symbiotes (due to their weakness to loud sounds).
Harris also uses a really stupid raspy voice for the role and is basically wasted overall in both her talents as an actor and as a meaningful character.
Venom: Let There Be Carnage never tries to be anything other than a dumb superhero film, but if you hated the first film, the sequel won’t make you feel any differently about Marvel’s lethal protector.
Hardy, in dual roles, is what makes these films worthwhile in the slightest, as his intricately comical self-chemistry is insane. The film also boasts what feels like an accelerated pace that moves the story from action sequence to action sequence before coming to an end rather quickly, leaving Venom: Let There Be Carnage to stand as one of those a special kind of stupid blockbuster endeavors that, every so often, strikes idiotic gold.
The sequel is a definite improvement over the first film in the sense that it totally embraces its stupidity resulting in a comic book film that feels light, silly, and amusingly psychotic all at the same time.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering – yes, the end-credits sequence is as worthwhile as the internet has made it out to be.
Written by Jeff Pinkner (Jumanji (2019), The Dark Tower), Scott Rosenberg (Con Air, Gone in 60 Seconds), and Kelly Marcel (Cruella, Fifty Shades of Grey), the first Venom film boasted cheesy 90s dialogue, ugly, blobby CGI/special effects sequences, and a wacky performance from Tom Hardy.
However, its sequel – Venom: Let There Be Carnage – is essentially the restaurant/lobster tank sequence from the first film stretched across 90-minutes of absurdity.
If you revisit Venom before watching Venom: Let There Be Carnage – and more specifically, the end credits sequence from the first film – the difference between the two is almost night and day. At the end of the last film, Eddie showed a calm, confident demeanor totally confident in his demeanor when interviewing Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson).
However, in the actual sequel itself, Eddie is back to looking sick, sweating profusely, and constantly fidgeting while talking to Cletus, obviously showing signs that his attempts to keep Venom under control have taken a toll on him.
Meanwhile, it seems as though the filmmakers couldn’t decide on how to style Harrelson’s red-haired wig for the film, as it humorously changes in appearance nearly every time Cletus is on screen.
Not learning anything from Anne’s (Michelle Williams) decision to leave him in the first film, Venom: Let There Be Carnage sees Eddie attempting to cover Cletus as a way to right his struggling journalism career.
But after Cletus gets a taste of Eddie’s blood, he becomes Carnage, the unpredictable and murderous son of the symbiote.
Kelly Marcell is the only writer from the first film to return, but the sequel mark’s Tom Hardy first feature film writing credit. Hardy contributed a ton of material regarding the intricacies of Venom and Eddie’s relationship – and it shows, as because they obviously know each other very well, the two drive each other crazy and argue like an old married couple.
For example, Venom is sick of eating chickens and being restrained by Eddie’s rules, and throws weird, symbiotic tantrums when he doesn’t get his way, acting very much like a child who isn’t able to play with their favorite toy or eat their favorite candy.
What’s intriguing about Venom and Eddie’s relationship is that it’s complicated, to say the least. There are homosexual undertones in the film, with Venom seemingly having his own ‘coming out party’ and even confessing his love for Eddie, but most of the film’s romantic undertones deal with both Eddie and Venom’s desire to win back Annie – the former because he’s still in love with her, and the latter because he wants Eddie to be happy, as the two humans are better together than they are apart.
It’s not as awkward as Eddie and Venom having a baby in the comics, but it’s still a peculiar way to go about exploring their relationship. Yet, it kind of works with the overall hectic and fast paced nature of the film.
The sequel also features an overall improvement in CGI and special effects, with Venom appearing more detailed in both the black, sleeker, and shinier parts of his body and his head, while his teeth have so much more detail than they did in his first outing.
Carnage being red also allows the audience to decipher what’s occurring on screen so much easier than in the first film, whose final fight between Venom and Riot is a horrid mess of two gray and black symbiotes that kind of just mashes them together into an indistinguishable blob of CGI and hopes that the audience’s imagination can do most of the heavy lifting.
Notably, there’s also a ton of fire in Let There Be Carnage, an ambient background addition which adds additional light sources and makes the action so much easier for your eyes to process.
The transformation sequences are special effects masterpieces because they have almost a werewolf kind of aspect to them – those in-between animations of Tom Hardy’s and Woody Harrelson’s faces being half transformed go a long way.
In particular, Carnage’s introduction is a pretty incredible display, as he causes a ton of mayhem and kills a massive amount of people. However, there is one lame aspect of Carnage’s CGI appearance, which is the goofy ‘tornado’ he turns into to as he violently sweep across his prison block – thankfully, however, it’s a simple thing to look past.
As for the Shriek (Naomie Harris)/Officer Mulligan (Stephen Graham), her entire side story is ultimately unnecessary. Shriek is only included in the film because of her ability to scream, and thus hurt symbiotes (due to their weakness to loud sounds).
Harris also uses a really stupid raspy voice for the role and is basically wasted overall in both her talents as an actor and as a meaningful character.
Venom: Let There Be Carnage never tries to be anything other than a dumb superhero film, but if you hated the first film, the sequel won’t make you feel any differently about Marvel’s lethal protector.
Hardy, in dual roles, is what makes these films worthwhile in the slightest, as his intricately comical self-chemistry is insane. The film also boasts what feels like an accelerated pace that moves the story from action sequence to action sequence before coming to an end rather quickly, leaving Venom: Let There Be Carnage to stand as one of those a special kind of stupid blockbuster endeavors that, every so often, strikes idiotic gold.
The sequel is a definite improvement over the first film in the sense that it totally embraces its stupidity resulting in a comic book film that feels light, silly, and amusingly psychotic all at the same time.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering – yes, the end-credits sequence is as worthwhile as the internet has made it out to be.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Apr 18, 2017
The Good, The Bad and The Editing
So...here's a movie that split so many fans and has caused COUNTLESS arguments online. My review may also cause arguments, but I'm willing to risk that as I have a fair bit to say about this movie, most importantly and foremost;
I enjoyed the movie!
The Good:
Let me start with what's good because I feel there's never enough positivity around this movie so here goes.
Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot were the two focuses of this movie because they had a lot of pressure on them to bring Batman and Wonder Woman to life and do the characters justice (terrible I know but I couldn't resist). All over the internet I saw hate for Ben Affleck and people saying Gal Gadot was too skinny. At first, I'll be honest, I did think Gal Gadot was really skinny and couldn't imagine her as Wonder Woman, BUT, unlike most people, I knew that before they would film her scenes, she would be 'buffing up' because I have faith in Zack Snyder because he is a fan and has made brilliant films. Man Of Steel made me like Superman, because of the way he was written as conflicted and the whole film made him more human and I loved it.
Here's where some people will disagree highly with me....I am not a big fan of the Nolan trilogy Batman. Now, before you throw a fit and verbally kick my ass, let me try and tell you why. The Voice! (it's not the only reason, but this is the reason I'm trying to make a point of) Batman a.k.a Bruce Wayne is a BILLIONAIRE, so who thought that the best way for him to disguise his voice would be to make him sound like he's fucked up his throat somehow? A billionaire with all those gadgets would surely think that what he needs is a voice modulator. Snyder brought in the voice modulator and I fell in love in that first trailer from hearing Batman talk through a voice modulator because I was sat there like "Hallelujah they finally worked out what a billionaire vigilante would do!" and I think it could be just me, but I honestly would prefer to think of Batman using one of those rather than grumbling his voice, because it just makes more sense.
So...Batfleck was incredible. My favourite portrayal so far and here's why:
- Arkham game fighting style
- Aged personality that says it all about why he's that violent
- He's definitely a great portrayal of the Dark Knight Returns version of Batman
- Ben Affleck is a great actor (in my opinion)
People's biggest complaint was 'Batman Kills' and I've had this discussion with my friends many times. Yes people died, IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE! It's rare but it's happened. You like the realism of Nolan's trilogy but there's a realism to Batfleck that you might not be seeing. He's been through all the same shit year in, year out for decades. Villains cause chaos, Batman fights villain, lets them live, puts them away, they break out, rinse repeat. Doing that for decades, losing people you love because of your choice not to kill, would surely cause a spark in your mind and Bruce Wayne says this in the movie through less words. "How many good guys are left? How many stay that way?"
If you think about it, he's essentially saying "I was a good guy but even I have had my boundaries pushed to the line and over". He's finally at the age where he has a state of mind that from his perspective...bad guys don't deserve to be shown mercy, but at the same time, he doesn't necessarily kill the bad guys directly.
Think of the warehouse scene. Bad Guy throws grenade, Batman kicks it back at him. Grenade goes BOOM. Bad guys die. BUT! If the guy hadn't have tried to throw the grenade, Batman wouldn't have kicked it back, and it wouldn't have ended in their death. Simple as that.
Let's move on though.
Superman is conflicted and the movie gets very political with a message of "Here's a God-Like figure. Should he be allowed to do what he wants or should we take away Choice by having under the Governments thumb?" and Superman personally is having internal issues of "I want this to be my home because it's the only home I've known, but these people don't want me and this stress is affecting both Clark Kent and Superman". He should have been able to see or hear the bomb in the wheelchair, but his mind was preoccupied with "Why does this government and these people hate me when I saved not only my city but the whole world?". Think about your stress with work, with college, school etc. and how it really does effect everything else around you. You might not want to go out with friends because you feel drained from the stress, now try to imagine that on the level of Superman! The poor guy just wanted to help.
My biggest enjoyment from this film was ALL OF THE DC REFERENCES! There were so many cool easter eggs, references etc. that I adored from Riddler Question Marks, to seeing Superman in a skeletal form after the Nuke explosion and then regaining his life force from the flowers through their Photosynthesis just like in the graphic novel! It was an incredible experience and I loved the film mainly for that.
The Bad:
Doomsday....I want to hope it's not the actual Doomsday and maybe just a failed experiment that Lex tried out but at the same time I know it probably is meant to be THE Doomsday.
The Editing:
The editing was jumpy and some cuts didn't make sense UNTIL the Ultimate Cut. The Ultimate Cut gives us some scenes with Clark Kent in Gotham BEFORE the big introduction to Batman in person, and hearing stories and investigating why people fear him, but also respect him. This would have worked so much better in the Theatrical Cut but sadly studios like to cut the film and people blame the Director for it which annoys me slightly.
Guaranteed this post might not change your mind, but I must say that you should try watching the film again if you've avoided it, watch the Ultimate Cut and really pay attention to how its being shown to the audience. Overall this is one of my favourite superhero movies and I will always stand up for it, BUT I'm not blind to it's faults.
I enjoyed the movie!
The Good:
Let me start with what's good because I feel there's never enough positivity around this movie so here goes.
Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot were the two focuses of this movie because they had a lot of pressure on them to bring Batman and Wonder Woman to life and do the characters justice (terrible I know but I couldn't resist). All over the internet I saw hate for Ben Affleck and people saying Gal Gadot was too skinny. At first, I'll be honest, I did think Gal Gadot was really skinny and couldn't imagine her as Wonder Woman, BUT, unlike most people, I knew that before they would film her scenes, she would be 'buffing up' because I have faith in Zack Snyder because he is a fan and has made brilliant films. Man Of Steel made me like Superman, because of the way he was written as conflicted and the whole film made him more human and I loved it.
Here's where some people will disagree highly with me....I am not a big fan of the Nolan trilogy Batman. Now, before you throw a fit and verbally kick my ass, let me try and tell you why. The Voice! (it's not the only reason, but this is the reason I'm trying to make a point of) Batman a.k.a Bruce Wayne is a BILLIONAIRE, so who thought that the best way for him to disguise his voice would be to make him sound like he's fucked up his throat somehow? A billionaire with all those gadgets would surely think that what he needs is a voice modulator. Snyder brought in the voice modulator and I fell in love in that first trailer from hearing Batman talk through a voice modulator because I was sat there like "Hallelujah they finally worked out what a billionaire vigilante would do!" and I think it could be just me, but I honestly would prefer to think of Batman using one of those rather than grumbling his voice, because it just makes more sense.
So...Batfleck was incredible. My favourite portrayal so far and here's why:
- Arkham game fighting style
- Aged personality that says it all about why he's that violent
- He's definitely a great portrayal of the Dark Knight Returns version of Batman
- Ben Affleck is a great actor (in my opinion)
People's biggest complaint was 'Batman Kills' and I've had this discussion with my friends many times. Yes people died, IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE! It's rare but it's happened. You like the realism of Nolan's trilogy but there's a realism to Batfleck that you might not be seeing. He's been through all the same shit year in, year out for decades. Villains cause chaos, Batman fights villain, lets them live, puts them away, they break out, rinse repeat. Doing that for decades, losing people you love because of your choice not to kill, would surely cause a spark in your mind and Bruce Wayne says this in the movie through less words. "How many good guys are left? How many stay that way?"
If you think about it, he's essentially saying "I was a good guy but even I have had my boundaries pushed to the line and over". He's finally at the age where he has a state of mind that from his perspective...bad guys don't deserve to be shown mercy, but at the same time, he doesn't necessarily kill the bad guys directly.
Think of the warehouse scene. Bad Guy throws grenade, Batman kicks it back at him. Grenade goes BOOM. Bad guys die. BUT! If the guy hadn't have tried to throw the grenade, Batman wouldn't have kicked it back, and it wouldn't have ended in their death. Simple as that.
Let's move on though.
Superman is conflicted and the movie gets very political with a message of "Here's a God-Like figure. Should he be allowed to do what he wants or should we take away Choice by having under the Governments thumb?" and Superman personally is having internal issues of "I want this to be my home because it's the only home I've known, but these people don't want me and this stress is affecting both Clark Kent and Superman". He should have been able to see or hear the bomb in the wheelchair, but his mind was preoccupied with "Why does this government and these people hate me when I saved not only my city but the whole world?". Think about your stress with work, with college, school etc. and how it really does effect everything else around you. You might not want to go out with friends because you feel drained from the stress, now try to imagine that on the level of Superman! The poor guy just wanted to help.
My biggest enjoyment from this film was ALL OF THE DC REFERENCES! There were so many cool easter eggs, references etc. that I adored from Riddler Question Marks, to seeing Superman in a skeletal form after the Nuke explosion and then regaining his life force from the flowers through their Photosynthesis just like in the graphic novel! It was an incredible experience and I loved the film mainly for that.
The Bad:
Doomsday....I want to hope it's not the actual Doomsday and maybe just a failed experiment that Lex tried out but at the same time I know it probably is meant to be THE Doomsday.
The Editing:
The editing was jumpy and some cuts didn't make sense UNTIL the Ultimate Cut. The Ultimate Cut gives us some scenes with Clark Kent in Gotham BEFORE the big introduction to Batman in person, and hearing stories and investigating why people fear him, but also respect him. This would have worked so much better in the Theatrical Cut but sadly studios like to cut the film and people blame the Director for it which annoys me slightly.
Guaranteed this post might not change your mind, but I must say that you should try watching the film again if you've avoided it, watch the Ultimate Cut and really pay attention to how its being shown to the audience. Overall this is one of my favourite superhero movies and I will always stand up for it, BUT I'm not blind to it's faults.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The Dark Knight picks up not too long after Batman Begins left off. The way the citizens of Gotham look at Batman is still pretty divided. Some see him as a vigilante in a mask who takes the law into his own hands and others see him as a caped crusader who helps keep scum off the streets. A hero to some and a villain to others. Harvey Dent, the man running for DA, enters the picture and could be the face Gotham is looking for to be its new hero. A man who's not only capable of getting rid of the filth on the streets of Gotham in a more efficient manner, but could be the reason Batman hangs up his cape for good. It seems as though Gotham has found itself with a new criminal psychopath though that's keeping Batman, Harvey Dent, and the Gotham PD busy these days. The Joker is, without a doubt, Batman's most dangerous adversary. A madman whose only desire is to give Gotham a better class of criminal. Bruce Wayne goes beyond his limits as Batman to try and take him down and all The Joker wants is for Gotham to be filled with pure chaos. Can Batman bring The Joker to justice? Will Harvey Dent become Gotham's new white knight? How does Rachel Dawes fit into the picture?
I had been looking forward to this movie for what seemed like an eternity and to make it worse is that I had to sit in the theater for an hour since I got there early. All I could think about was that I was finally seeing this movie that I was so excited about. I have never anticipated a film to this capacity. Ever. I was thinking that there was no way a movie could live up to being that good. So the real question is, "Did the film live up to my expectations?" The answer is no. It didn't. It surpassed my expectations in every way possible. The two hours and thirty two minutes running time went by in a blur as there was little to no down time and my eyes were drawn to the screen the entire time. This movie was epic. I don't toss that word around too often, but there's no way else to describe it. It was epic in every sense of the word. I've never seen a film that had this much of a crowd response to not only the film, its actors, its twists and turns, but the trailers beforehand as well. I lost count how many times I had goosebumps throughout the film because what I was witnessing was exactly what I wanted to see and then some. It is truly an extraordinary experience.
The cast was brilliant. The returning cast from the last film continued to be impressive. Michael Caine always manages to be charming and steal a few laughs as Alfred and the film wouldn't be the same without Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. Christian Bale is still the best Batman to ever put on the cape, in my opinion. It was nice seeing more Batman this time around than Bruce Wayne. The way he struggles with if continuing to be Batman is the right thing for Gotham still plagues him and is still equally as amazing. Maggie Gyllenhaal has, as I'm sure you've heard by now, replaced Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes and actually brings a spark to the role. She brought the charisma and overall talent to The Dark Knight that Katie Holmes should have had in Batman Begins. Gary Oldman is an actor who I still think doesn't deserve the credit he deserves and what he brings to the role of Jim Gordon, especially this time around in The Dark Knight, should hopefully get people talking. Which brings me to Aaron Eckhart. By the time the credits start rolling, I can guarantee you'll be praising his work in this film. I can't really imagine anyone else in the role of Harvey Dent now and what he winds up going through and how he portrays it is just incredible. The intensity he put into the role really caused him to steal quite a few scenes.
Hm. That's the whole cast isn't it? I'm not leaving anyone out, right? Oh, of course. Heath Ledger as The Joker. Did it live up to the hype and was it worth all the fuss? It does, my friends. It's actually better than the hype. Ledger steals every scene he's in. Period. Whatever he tapped into and whatever kind of preparation he went through for this role is truly phenomenal. He WAS The Joker in this film. He was somehow able to embody The Joker in a way that is frightening, maniacal, and even hysterical all at the same time. You will wind up holding your breath and trying not to make a sound every time he comes on screen because you don't want to miss a second of this mesmerizing performance. I was reading that he locked himself up in an empty apartment for a month to prepare for the role to get a true feel for the character; his body language, quirks, his voice, etc. He had The Killing Joke, The Man Who Laughed, and a few of the first issues of Batman that had appearances from the Joker as references. I can tell you this...it truly shows, if that's the case. The way he submerged himself in this character is almost beyond words. He deserves every ounce of praise that he gets.
It is ridiculous how much praise The Dark Knight truly deserves. Even the most elaborate descriptions feel like they're still not doing the movie justice. The film is for Batman fans, for Nolan fans, for fans of good storytelling, for fans of good writing, for fans of amazing cinematography, for fans of some of the strongest acting performances ever to be filmed, for fans of action/crime/dramas...long story short, the film can and probably will be enjoyed by anyone. It is the only film to come out in recent years that not only lived up to the hype, but leaped over it and actually deserved every bit of it. By the time you get to the end credits, you'll immediately want to see it again and you'll be just as excited the second time(and possibly third time) through. It's that good.
I had been looking forward to this movie for what seemed like an eternity and to make it worse is that I had to sit in the theater for an hour since I got there early. All I could think about was that I was finally seeing this movie that I was so excited about. I have never anticipated a film to this capacity. Ever. I was thinking that there was no way a movie could live up to being that good. So the real question is, "Did the film live up to my expectations?" The answer is no. It didn't. It surpassed my expectations in every way possible. The two hours and thirty two minutes running time went by in a blur as there was little to no down time and my eyes were drawn to the screen the entire time. This movie was epic. I don't toss that word around too often, but there's no way else to describe it. It was epic in every sense of the word. I've never seen a film that had this much of a crowd response to not only the film, its actors, its twists and turns, but the trailers beforehand as well. I lost count how many times I had goosebumps throughout the film because what I was witnessing was exactly what I wanted to see and then some. It is truly an extraordinary experience.
The cast was brilliant. The returning cast from the last film continued to be impressive. Michael Caine always manages to be charming and steal a few laughs as Alfred and the film wouldn't be the same without Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox. Christian Bale is still the best Batman to ever put on the cape, in my opinion. It was nice seeing more Batman this time around than Bruce Wayne. The way he struggles with if continuing to be Batman is the right thing for Gotham still plagues him and is still equally as amazing. Maggie Gyllenhaal has, as I'm sure you've heard by now, replaced Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes and actually brings a spark to the role. She brought the charisma and overall talent to The Dark Knight that Katie Holmes should have had in Batman Begins. Gary Oldman is an actor who I still think doesn't deserve the credit he deserves and what he brings to the role of Jim Gordon, especially this time around in The Dark Knight, should hopefully get people talking. Which brings me to Aaron Eckhart. By the time the credits start rolling, I can guarantee you'll be praising his work in this film. I can't really imagine anyone else in the role of Harvey Dent now and what he winds up going through and how he portrays it is just incredible. The intensity he put into the role really caused him to steal quite a few scenes.
Hm. That's the whole cast isn't it? I'm not leaving anyone out, right? Oh, of course. Heath Ledger as The Joker. Did it live up to the hype and was it worth all the fuss? It does, my friends. It's actually better than the hype. Ledger steals every scene he's in. Period. Whatever he tapped into and whatever kind of preparation he went through for this role is truly phenomenal. He WAS The Joker in this film. He was somehow able to embody The Joker in a way that is frightening, maniacal, and even hysterical all at the same time. You will wind up holding your breath and trying not to make a sound every time he comes on screen because you don't want to miss a second of this mesmerizing performance. I was reading that he locked himself up in an empty apartment for a month to prepare for the role to get a true feel for the character; his body language, quirks, his voice, etc. He had The Killing Joke, The Man Who Laughed, and a few of the first issues of Batman that had appearances from the Joker as references. I can tell you this...it truly shows, if that's the case. The way he submerged himself in this character is almost beyond words. He deserves every ounce of praise that he gets.
It is ridiculous how much praise The Dark Knight truly deserves. Even the most elaborate descriptions feel like they're still not doing the movie justice. The film is for Batman fans, for Nolan fans, for fans of good storytelling, for fans of good writing, for fans of amazing cinematography, for fans of some of the strongest acting performances ever to be filmed, for fans of action/crime/dramas...long story short, the film can and probably will be enjoyed by anyone. It is the only film to come out in recent years that not only lived up to the hype, but leaped over it and actually deserved every bit of it. By the time you get to the end credits, you'll immediately want to see it again and you'll be just as excited the second time(and possibly third time) through. It's that good.