Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Dec 6, 2017
Not as Bad as the Critics Said
Passengers works for me largely in part due to the great chemistry between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. Their relationship is believable, real. Exactly what I would expect from two people stuck in a space paradise together. I try to avoid words like "sizzle" and "spice" when describing onscreen pairings, but it's 7:30pm on a Tuesday night and I have folded clothes to put away. So....Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence absolutely sizzle onscreen together! Free from the inhibitions of watching eyes the duo adds real spice to the film's flavor. Yep, that just happened. No regrets. Yolo.
I was surprised by how solid the film was from beginning to end. The mark of a great movie for me is consistency throughout, the same measure I use to judge a good key lime pie. Passengers kept me engaged for its entirety without managing to overstay its welcome. It's funny in parts while being touching in others. Overall the pace works.
The special effects were also impressive. The inside of the ship where most of the story takes place is a carnival of sights. Its futuristic yet a familiar touch of home at the same time. The recesses of space were captured in brilliant fashion. As main character Jim Preston (Pratt) goes exploring the expanse, you start to realize just how small and lonely he must feel in comparison.
When Preston awakens on a craft headed for another planet, he realizes the ship pulled him from hibernation too soon. It isn't long before he is joined by Aurora Lane (Lawrence) who has to help him figure out why the ship woke them up early before things go terribly wrong.
The only thing holding this film back from being great as opposed to "just ok" is implausibility. There are quite a few things that happen, both from a scientific standpoint and plot advancement standpoint, that may leave you scratching your head a bit. This film falls victim at times of trying to take shortcuts. However, if you can suspend your disbelief for just long enough and turn a blind eye, you won't be disappointed.
Some films are reviewed badly because they're...well...bad. Other films fall victim to what I call Pile-On: A few critics from the "In Crowd" don't like it so everyone else is supposed to hate it as well (see The Hitman's Bodyguard). I think Passengers suffer from the latter. See it. It won't change your life, but a great way to spend two hours nonetheless. I give it a 73.
I was surprised by how solid the film was from beginning to end. The mark of a great movie for me is consistency throughout, the same measure I use to judge a good key lime pie. Passengers kept me engaged for its entirety without managing to overstay its welcome. It's funny in parts while being touching in others. Overall the pace works.
The special effects were also impressive. The inside of the ship where most of the story takes place is a carnival of sights. Its futuristic yet a familiar touch of home at the same time. The recesses of space were captured in brilliant fashion. As main character Jim Preston (Pratt) goes exploring the expanse, you start to realize just how small and lonely he must feel in comparison.
When Preston awakens on a craft headed for another planet, he realizes the ship pulled him from hibernation too soon. It isn't long before he is joined by Aurora Lane (Lawrence) who has to help him figure out why the ship woke them up early before things go terribly wrong.
The only thing holding this film back from being great as opposed to "just ok" is implausibility. There are quite a few things that happen, both from a scientific standpoint and plot advancement standpoint, that may leave you scratching your head a bit. This film falls victim at times of trying to take shortcuts. However, if you can suspend your disbelief for just long enough and turn a blind eye, you won't be disappointed.
Some films are reviewed badly because they're...well...bad. Other films fall victim to what I call Pile-On: A few critics from the "In Crowd" don't like it so everyone else is supposed to hate it as well (see The Hitman's Bodyguard). I think Passengers suffer from the latter. See it. It won't change your life, but a great way to spend two hours nonetheless. I give it a 73.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Water for Elephants (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The future is bright with promise for Jacob, a Cornell veterinary sciences student, ready to graduate and follow in his father’s footsteps. But after a series of unfortunate events, Jacob finds himself a college dropout, homeless and penniless. He sets out to find work and stows away on a passing train which turns out to be the Benzini Brothers Circus train.
Jacob appeals to the vanity of the heartless circus owner and ringmaster, August, convincing him to keep him on as the circus veterinary doctor. One of his first patients is the horse of the circus’ star attraction, Marlena, who also happens to be August’s wife. When Marlena’s horse is replaced by an elephant, Jacob is made responsible for the elephant’s care and training. This gives Marlena and Jacob a common ally in Rosie, the elephant, and a common enemy in an increasingly violent August. Cue the furtive glances, the stilted conversations and awkward moments that signal the start of the mutual attraction between Marlena and Jacob.
While Jacob, Marlena and August form the romantic triangle that drives the story, it’s Rosie and the circus backdrop that provide the more entertaining aspects of the movie. Director Francis Lawrence (Constantine and I Am Legend) pays decent attention to period detail, highlighting the desperation and brutality of The Great Depression while romanticizing the ephemeral circus life and the subversive lifestyles enjoyed in defiance of The Prohibition. Sadly they were just quick peeks into a curious world.
Based on a best-selling novel of the same name by Sara Gruen, Water for Elephants is a sweet tale told in retrospect by a 90-something-year old Jacob, played by a wistful Hal Holbrook. Robert Pattinson plays young Jacob capably, and I have no doubt his fans will swoon at the many close ups of his brooding stare, pained grimaces and the occasional delighted smile. While this character gives him a few more lines than his more well-known role as Edward, the tortured vampire of the Twilight saga, it was difficult to watch him and not see the similarities in how he portrays Jacob and Edward. Reese Witherspoon’s Marlena was in turns adequately fragile and sufficiently steely. With negligible chemistry, Pattinson and Witherspoon’s performances paled in comparison to that of Christoph Waltz whose sadistic August was played with cunning zeal.
A carefully told story, Water for Elephants is however too carefully told, in a predictable, pedantic pace. However, fans of Pattinson will not be disappointed.
Jacob appeals to the vanity of the heartless circus owner and ringmaster, August, convincing him to keep him on as the circus veterinary doctor. One of his first patients is the horse of the circus’ star attraction, Marlena, who also happens to be August’s wife. When Marlena’s horse is replaced by an elephant, Jacob is made responsible for the elephant’s care and training. This gives Marlena and Jacob a common ally in Rosie, the elephant, and a common enemy in an increasingly violent August. Cue the furtive glances, the stilted conversations and awkward moments that signal the start of the mutual attraction between Marlena and Jacob.
While Jacob, Marlena and August form the romantic triangle that drives the story, it’s Rosie and the circus backdrop that provide the more entertaining aspects of the movie. Director Francis Lawrence (Constantine and I Am Legend) pays decent attention to period detail, highlighting the desperation and brutality of The Great Depression while romanticizing the ephemeral circus life and the subversive lifestyles enjoyed in defiance of The Prohibition. Sadly they were just quick peeks into a curious world.
Based on a best-selling novel of the same name by Sara Gruen, Water for Elephants is a sweet tale told in retrospect by a 90-something-year old Jacob, played by a wistful Hal Holbrook. Robert Pattinson plays young Jacob capably, and I have no doubt his fans will swoon at the many close ups of his brooding stare, pained grimaces and the occasional delighted smile. While this character gives him a few more lines than his more well-known role as Edward, the tortured vampire of the Twilight saga, it was difficult to watch him and not see the similarities in how he portrays Jacob and Edward. Reese Witherspoon’s Marlena was in turns adequately fragile and sufficiently steely. With negligible chemistry, Pattinson and Witherspoon’s performances paled in comparison to that of Christoph Waltz whose sadistic August was played with cunning zeal.
A carefully told story, Water for Elephants is however too carefully told, in a predictable, pedantic pace. However, fans of Pattinson will not be disappointed.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Car Dogs (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
One of the things that universally connects us in this world is driving. Eventually, in life, the other factor involved is buying a vehicle. Depending on your experience, it can be nerve wracking, intensely crazy or enjoyable. Almost everyone has a story about the first car they purchased. For some it is the entire process, spotting THE car or coming up against the salespeople. This common thread allows us to identify with each other. With Car Dogs, you will find yourself immersed in the world of car sales.
Mark Chamberlain (Patrick J. Adams) is a sales manager at his father’s dealership. He is in line to get his own shop once he fulfills the quota assigned by his dad. We see Mark go through his day handling purchase issues, client issues and his salespeople in the bullpen. Christian (George Lopez, playing against type) is one of the top dogs at Chamberlain. He gets assigned a fresh rookie on the day that he is busting to make his numbers. Sharon (Nia Vardalos) Is the clever sales guru that is always in competition with Christian. She plays Sharon as a tough but smart sales rep with a warm likability. George Lopez and Nia Vardalos are both well known for comedic parts and they play against type with such care that their performances are refreshingly unexpected.
Patrick J. Adams evokes the stress and pressure that he slowly builds throughout the day, taking us with him as the clock counts down to the hour of reckoning that is the sales goal of 35 cars for the day. This number is enforced by Mark’s father Malcolm (Chris Mulkey) embodying the old school stereotype of a car dealer, pushing his son in a supremely passive-aggressive dance with his brown nosing sadist sidekick Mike (Josh Hopkins).
Filmed on location in Scottsdale, Arizona. Directed by Adam Collis, taking us on a road trip that has familiar sites and unexpected surprises. Mark Edward King’s script pulls the curtain back from a world we rarely see the inner workings and shows us that even car salesmen, although can be real jerks to get the sale, are also human.
Whether you have bought or sold a car. Shopped or searched for the right one, dealt with some B.S. artist or had a fantastic experience. This movie provides the viewer with moments at a dealership that are so familiar, yet gives us a look at how they function behind the sales desk.
Mark Chamberlain (Patrick J. Adams) is a sales manager at his father’s dealership. He is in line to get his own shop once he fulfills the quota assigned by his dad. We see Mark go through his day handling purchase issues, client issues and his salespeople in the bullpen. Christian (George Lopez, playing against type) is one of the top dogs at Chamberlain. He gets assigned a fresh rookie on the day that he is busting to make his numbers. Sharon (Nia Vardalos) Is the clever sales guru that is always in competition with Christian. She plays Sharon as a tough but smart sales rep with a warm likability. George Lopez and Nia Vardalos are both well known for comedic parts and they play against type with such care that their performances are refreshingly unexpected.
Patrick J. Adams evokes the stress and pressure that he slowly builds throughout the day, taking us with him as the clock counts down to the hour of reckoning that is the sales goal of 35 cars for the day. This number is enforced by Mark’s father Malcolm (Chris Mulkey) embodying the old school stereotype of a car dealer, pushing his son in a supremely passive-aggressive dance with his brown nosing sadist sidekick Mike (Josh Hopkins).
Filmed on location in Scottsdale, Arizona. Directed by Adam Collis, taking us on a road trip that has familiar sites and unexpected surprises. Mark Edward King’s script pulls the curtain back from a world we rarely see the inner workings and shows us that even car salesmen, although can be real jerks to get the sale, are also human.
Whether you have bought or sold a car. Shopped or searched for the right one, dealt with some B.S. artist or had a fantastic experience. This movie provides the viewer with moments at a dealership that are so familiar, yet gives us a look at how they function behind the sales desk.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) in Movies
Apr 20, 2017
The beginning of an era that will last a life time (3 more)
Character
Special Effects
Movie Score that is highly recognizable
Han Shot First!!!
Star Wars...the movie no one believed would become anywhere close to the success it is today. Not even George Lucas believed it would be as big as it is, but that's the beauty of it.
Star Wars wasn't just the beginning of a new fandom, it was also the beginning of a new era for film itself. Skywalker Sound revolutionized special sound effects and and the CGI used in Star Wars (during it's original release) made directors like Steven Spielberg realise they can bring their dreams to life, such as the film Jurassic Park which then revolutionized film even further.
Introducing new and original characters such as Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, Chewbacca, Darth Vader and so many more! The film introduced the strong female role model in what is actually a kid's film. Carrie Fisher portrayed Princess Leia and there has never been anyone quite as brilliant as her since, because at only 19 years old during the first film, she became an icon and one of the strongest woman on screen.
All 3 of the main cast went on to take on great roles. Mark Hamill is probably most famous for his voice over work in cartoon shows such as Batman the Animated series where he has become the most famous voice for The Joker, taking on the role multiple times including in the Batman Arkham video games. Harrison Ford went on to star in many famous roles in big blockbuster films such as Indiana Jones, Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner and many more. Carrie Fisher went on to star in When Harry Met Sally, Drop Dead Fred, and Scream 3.
The villain of the film quickly became one of the most badass and recognizable villains to ever appear on the big screen...Darth Vader! He was menacing, manipulative, and powerful.
The visuals of this film were incredible for the time, from the space battles to the lightsabers. Not to mention that a lot of the space ships, and the death star trench are all models with actual (mini) explosions.
Star Wars is so popular these days that it has been parodied and praised by countless other films, TV shows, sketches, art, porn and almost anything you can think of.
It even has a holiday after it 'May the 4th be with you' (May the force be with you), now known simply as May the 4th. Along with conventions and celebrations, Star Wars has become more of a way of life for a lot of people and not just a fandom.
Star Wars wasn't just the beginning of a new fandom, it was also the beginning of a new era for film itself. Skywalker Sound revolutionized special sound effects and and the CGI used in Star Wars (during it's original release) made directors like Steven Spielberg realise they can bring their dreams to life, such as the film Jurassic Park which then revolutionized film even further.
Introducing new and original characters such as Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, Chewbacca, Darth Vader and so many more! The film introduced the strong female role model in what is actually a kid's film. Carrie Fisher portrayed Princess Leia and there has never been anyone quite as brilliant as her since, because at only 19 years old during the first film, she became an icon and one of the strongest woman on screen.
All 3 of the main cast went on to take on great roles. Mark Hamill is probably most famous for his voice over work in cartoon shows such as Batman the Animated series where he has become the most famous voice for The Joker, taking on the role multiple times including in the Batman Arkham video games. Harrison Ford went on to star in many famous roles in big blockbuster films such as Indiana Jones, Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner and many more. Carrie Fisher went on to star in When Harry Met Sally, Drop Dead Fred, and Scream 3.
The villain of the film quickly became one of the most badass and recognizable villains to ever appear on the big screen...Darth Vader! He was menacing, manipulative, and powerful.
The visuals of this film were incredible for the time, from the space battles to the lightsabers. Not to mention that a lot of the space ships, and the death star trench are all models with actual (mini) explosions.
Star Wars is so popular these days that it has been parodied and praised by countless other films, TV shows, sketches, art, porn and almost anything you can think of.
It even has a holiday after it 'May the 4th be with you' (May the force be with you), now known simply as May the 4th. Along with conventions and celebrations, Star Wars has become more of a way of life for a lot of people and not just a fandom.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
This little film has big shoes to fill
Alexander Payne was clearly vying for Oscars attention when it came to penning the screenplay for Downsizing. And why not, he’s certainly got form in the awards department. A two-time Oscar winner with a further three nominations, his films have been bold and topical.
That topical trademark shows no signs of dissipating with Downsizing, as Payne takes on the themes of overpopulation and the effects it’ll have on us in the future. But is the resulting film one of his best works? Or are we looking at a bit of a dud?
When scientists discover how to shrink humans to five inches tall as a solution to overpopulation, Paul (Matt Damon) and his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig) decide to abandon their cash-strapped and stressed lives in order to get small and move to a new downsized community — a choice that triggers life-changing adventures in more ways than one.
The film certainly gets off to a good start before it even begins. Just look at the cast! With Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Laura Dern, Christoph Waltz, Neil Patrick Harris and Jason Sudeikis being just some of the actors on the roster here, there’s certainly a lot of talent about. And things continue to look very good indeed.
Downsizing starts out great. In fact, it has one of the best first acts of any film I’ve seen as we are introduced to the concept of downsizing and the lives in which its partakers lead. Damon is a magnetic leading presence and oozes charm throughout the film. It’s also genuinely funny with a script that knows how to garner laughs from the audience without delving into unnecessary slapstick.
To look at, Downsizing is really rather lovely. Filled with clever special effects, it’s a pleasure to watch and fascinating to sit there and think about all the camera trickery required to pull it off. Watching a miniature ship pull bottles of vodka is strangely satisfying.
And then, about 45 minutes in, things start to go rapidly downhill. So downhill that I left the cinema wondering how on earth a movie that began so positively, could result in a middle and final act so disappointingly ordinary. On the journey home, I used that time to think of the reasons.
That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end
Firstly, that talented cast I spoke about earlier is completely and utterly wasted. Outside of Damon, each of the brilliant actors is given a glorified cameo that makes little-to-no difference on the final outcome. Laura Dern is in the film for less than 3 minutes – in fact, her scene is exactly what you see in the trailer. Christoph Waltz plays a bizarre Serbian playboy who is funny and irritating in equal measure and the less said about Kristen Wiig’s part the better.
Secondly, the story just doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise. We get a vague environmental message about the beauty of nature and the fragility of life, but the idea of downsizing and the beautiful residences of “Leisureland” are merely a shell for Damon to go from scene to scene. His adventures with Hong Chau, which make up the bulk of the overstuffed 132-minute runtime, are pleasant enough, but we want to see more of the people who have decided to shrink themselves.
Thirdly, the tone is an absolute mess. Is it a comedy? What about a drama? Perhaps a rom-com? Who knows! That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end.
Finally, the ending is absolutely dreadful and one of the worst ever put to film. I’m not sure if Payne thought it would be a good idea to leave the movie open to a sequel but there is absolutely no payoff to the previous 130-or-so minutes whatsoever. It just falls flat.
Overall, Downsizing has a brilliant premise and a wonderfully talented cast, but each of those is wasted and that’s unforgivable. What starts out as a clever piece of social commentary about the issues we, as a species, currently face, ends up becoming one of the most ordinary films you’ll ever see and a bit of a misstep for the usually superb Alexander Payne. It’s certainly his worst film to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/27/downsizing-review-this-little-film-has-big-shoes-to-fill/
That topical trademark shows no signs of dissipating with Downsizing, as Payne takes on the themes of overpopulation and the effects it’ll have on us in the future. But is the resulting film one of his best works? Or are we looking at a bit of a dud?
When scientists discover how to shrink humans to five inches tall as a solution to overpopulation, Paul (Matt Damon) and his wife Audrey (Kristen Wiig) decide to abandon their cash-strapped and stressed lives in order to get small and move to a new downsized community — a choice that triggers life-changing adventures in more ways than one.
The film certainly gets off to a good start before it even begins. Just look at the cast! With Matt Damon, Kristen Wiig, Laura Dern, Christoph Waltz, Neil Patrick Harris and Jason Sudeikis being just some of the actors on the roster here, there’s certainly a lot of talent about. And things continue to look very good indeed.
Downsizing starts out great. In fact, it has one of the best first acts of any film I’ve seen as we are introduced to the concept of downsizing and the lives in which its partakers lead. Damon is a magnetic leading presence and oozes charm throughout the film. It’s also genuinely funny with a script that knows how to garner laughs from the audience without delving into unnecessary slapstick.
To look at, Downsizing is really rather lovely. Filled with clever special effects, it’s a pleasure to watch and fascinating to sit there and think about all the camera trickery required to pull it off. Watching a miniature ship pull bottles of vodka is strangely satisfying.
And then, about 45 minutes in, things start to go rapidly downhill. So downhill that I left the cinema wondering how on earth a movie that began so positively, could result in a middle and final act so disappointingly ordinary. On the journey home, I used that time to think of the reasons.
That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end
Firstly, that talented cast I spoke about earlier is completely and utterly wasted. Outside of Damon, each of the brilliant actors is given a glorified cameo that makes little-to-no difference on the final outcome. Laura Dern is in the film for less than 3 minutes – in fact, her scene is exactly what you see in the trailer. Christoph Waltz plays a bizarre Serbian playboy who is funny and irritating in equal measure and the less said about Kristen Wiig’s part the better.
Secondly, the story just doesn’t do enough with its fascinating premise. We get a vague environmental message about the beauty of nature and the fragility of life, but the idea of downsizing and the beautiful residences of “Leisureland” are merely a shell for Damon to go from scene to scene. His adventures with Hong Chau, which make up the bulk of the overstuffed 132-minute runtime, are pleasant enough, but we want to see more of the people who have decided to shrink themselves.
Thirdly, the tone is an absolute mess. Is it a comedy? What about a drama? Perhaps a rom-com? Who knows! That promising script from the first act becomes so muddled it becomes nearly incomprehensible towards the end.
Finally, the ending is absolutely dreadful and one of the worst ever put to film. I’m not sure if Payne thought it would be a good idea to leave the movie open to a sequel but there is absolutely no payoff to the previous 130-or-so minutes whatsoever. It just falls flat.
Overall, Downsizing has a brilliant premise and a wonderfully talented cast, but each of those is wasted and that’s unforgivable. What starts out as a clever piece of social commentary about the issues we, as a species, currently face, ends up becoming one of the most ordinary films you’ll ever see and a bit of a misstep for the usually superb Alexander Payne. It’s certainly his worst film to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/27/downsizing-review-this-little-film-has-big-shoes-to-fill/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
There are a swathe of European film-makers like Luca Guadagnino and Paolo Sorrentino that have the skill to make every image they print to film look like a work of art, giving you the feeling you are on the most idyllic holiday you ever had. Watching a largely silent image of a beautiful lake or a tree in the breeze, or an al fresco dinner where family and friends talk freely whilst the wine and olive oil flow is a treat I am not immune to.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Contented with little, wishing for more”.
Here’s a curious little British film that has some merit, both as an entertainment vehicle and as a history lesson.
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Tingler (1959) in Movies
Dec 5, 2020
Vincent Price (1 more)
William Castle
When You Scream
The Tingler- is a excellent movie and if you havent watched it than go watch it.
The plot: Dr. Warren Chapin (Vincent Price) has made a surprising discovery -- the spine-chilling sensation that people get when scared is due to a parasite that he dubs the "tingler." Chapin concludes that in extreme circumstances, prolonged fear can cause the creature to damage a person's spine and even cause death if the victim can't scream, a theory that Oliver Higgins (Philip Coolidge) uses to deadly effect on his wife (Judith Evelyn). Soon the tingler that killed the woman is on the loose.
Castle used gimmicks to sell the film. The Tingler remains most well known for a gimmick called "Percepto!", a vibrating device in some theater chairs which activated with the onscreen action.
In a similar manner as Universal's Frankenstein (1931), Castle opened the film with an on-screen warning to the audience:
"I am William Castle, the director of the motion picture you are about to see. I feel obligated to warn you that some of the sensations—some of the physical reactions which the actors on the screen will feel—will also be experienced, for the first time in motion picture history, by certain members of this audience. I say 'certain members' because some people are more sensitive to these mysterious electronic impulses than others. These unfortunate, sensitive people will at times feel a strange, tingling sensation; other people will feel it less strongly. But don't be alarmed—you can protect yourself. At any time you are conscious of a tingling sensation, you may obtain immediate relief by screaming. Don't be embarrassed about opening your mouth and letting rip with all you've got, because the person in the seat right next to you will probably be screaming too. And remember—a scream at the right time may save your life."
William Castle was famous for his movie gimmicks, and The Tingler featured one of his best: "Percepto!". Previously, he had offered a $1,000 life insurance policy against "Death by Fright" for Macabre (1958) and sent a skeleton flying above the audiences' heads in the auditorium in House on Haunted Hill (1959).
"Percepto!" was a gimmick where Castle attached electrical "buzzers" to the underside of some seats in theaters where The Tingler was screened. The buzzers were small surplus airplane wing deicing motors left from World War II. The cost of this equipment added $250,000 to the film's budget. It was used predominantly in larger theaters.
During the climax of the film, The Tingler was unleashed in the movie theater, while the audience watched Tol'able David (1921), in which a young woman escapes the unwanted advances of her boyfriend and is targeted. In the real-life theater, a woman screamed and then pretended to faint; she was then taken away in a stretcher, all part of the show arranged by Castle. From the screen, the voice of Price mentioned the fainted lady and asked the rest of the audience to remain seated. The film-within-a-film resumed and was interrupted again. The projected film appeared to break as the silhouette of the tingler moved across the projection beam. The image of the film went dark, all lights in the auditorium (except fire exit signs) went off, and Price's voice warned the audience, "Ladies and gentlemen, please do not panic. But scream! Scream for your lives! The tingler is loose in this theater!" This cued the theater projectionist to activate the Percepto! buzzers, giving some audience members an unexpected jolt, followed by a highly visible physical reaction. The voices of scared patrons were heard from the screen, replaced by the voice of Price, who explained that the tingler was paralyzed and the danger was over. At this point, the film resumed its normal format, which was used for its epilogue
An alternate warning was recorded for drive-in theaters; this warning advised the audience the tingler was loose in the drive-in. Castle's voice was substituted for Price's in this version.
Castle's autobiography, Step Right Up!: I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, erroneously stated that "Percepto!" delivered electric shocks to the theater seats.
To enhance the climax even more, Castle hired fake "screamers and fainters" planted in the audience There were fake nurses stationed in the foyer and an ambulance outside of the theater. The "fainters" would be carried out on a gurney and whisked away in the ambulance, to return for the next showing.
Although The Tingler was filmed in black-and-white, a short color sequence was spliced into the film. It showed a sink (in black-and-white) with bright-red "blood" flowing from the taps and a black-and-white Evelyn watching a bloody red hand rising from a bathtub, likewise filled with the bright red "blood". Castle used color film for the effect. The scene was accomplished by painting the set white, black and gray and applying gray makeup to the actress to simulate monochrome.
Excellent Film.
The plot: Dr. Warren Chapin (Vincent Price) has made a surprising discovery -- the spine-chilling sensation that people get when scared is due to a parasite that he dubs the "tingler." Chapin concludes that in extreme circumstances, prolonged fear can cause the creature to damage a person's spine and even cause death if the victim can't scream, a theory that Oliver Higgins (Philip Coolidge) uses to deadly effect on his wife (Judith Evelyn). Soon the tingler that killed the woman is on the loose.
Castle used gimmicks to sell the film. The Tingler remains most well known for a gimmick called "Percepto!", a vibrating device in some theater chairs which activated with the onscreen action.
In a similar manner as Universal's Frankenstein (1931), Castle opened the film with an on-screen warning to the audience:
"I am William Castle, the director of the motion picture you are about to see. I feel obligated to warn you that some of the sensations—some of the physical reactions which the actors on the screen will feel—will also be experienced, for the first time in motion picture history, by certain members of this audience. I say 'certain members' because some people are more sensitive to these mysterious electronic impulses than others. These unfortunate, sensitive people will at times feel a strange, tingling sensation; other people will feel it less strongly. But don't be alarmed—you can protect yourself. At any time you are conscious of a tingling sensation, you may obtain immediate relief by screaming. Don't be embarrassed about opening your mouth and letting rip with all you've got, because the person in the seat right next to you will probably be screaming too. And remember—a scream at the right time may save your life."
William Castle was famous for his movie gimmicks, and The Tingler featured one of his best: "Percepto!". Previously, he had offered a $1,000 life insurance policy against "Death by Fright" for Macabre (1958) and sent a skeleton flying above the audiences' heads in the auditorium in House on Haunted Hill (1959).
"Percepto!" was a gimmick where Castle attached electrical "buzzers" to the underside of some seats in theaters where The Tingler was screened. The buzzers were small surplus airplane wing deicing motors left from World War II. The cost of this equipment added $250,000 to the film's budget. It was used predominantly in larger theaters.
During the climax of the film, The Tingler was unleashed in the movie theater, while the audience watched Tol'able David (1921), in which a young woman escapes the unwanted advances of her boyfriend and is targeted. In the real-life theater, a woman screamed and then pretended to faint; she was then taken away in a stretcher, all part of the show arranged by Castle. From the screen, the voice of Price mentioned the fainted lady and asked the rest of the audience to remain seated. The film-within-a-film resumed and was interrupted again. The projected film appeared to break as the silhouette of the tingler moved across the projection beam. The image of the film went dark, all lights in the auditorium (except fire exit signs) went off, and Price's voice warned the audience, "Ladies and gentlemen, please do not panic. But scream! Scream for your lives! The tingler is loose in this theater!" This cued the theater projectionist to activate the Percepto! buzzers, giving some audience members an unexpected jolt, followed by a highly visible physical reaction. The voices of scared patrons were heard from the screen, replaced by the voice of Price, who explained that the tingler was paralyzed and the danger was over. At this point, the film resumed its normal format, which was used for its epilogue
An alternate warning was recorded for drive-in theaters; this warning advised the audience the tingler was loose in the drive-in. Castle's voice was substituted for Price's in this version.
Castle's autobiography, Step Right Up!: I'm Gonna Scare the Pants off America, erroneously stated that "Percepto!" delivered electric shocks to the theater seats.
To enhance the climax even more, Castle hired fake "screamers and fainters" planted in the audience There were fake nurses stationed in the foyer and an ambulance outside of the theater. The "fainters" would be carried out on a gurney and whisked away in the ambulance, to return for the next showing.
Although The Tingler was filmed in black-and-white, a short color sequence was spliced into the film. It showed a sink (in black-and-white) with bright-red "blood" flowing from the taps and a black-and-white Evelyn watching a bloody red hand rising from a bathtub, likewise filled with the bright red "blood". Castle used color film for the effect. The scene was accomplished by painting the set white, black and gray and applying gray makeup to the actress to simulate monochrome.
Excellent Film.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
If you check back in the archives of The Wasteland you will see that from time to time I do find myself down the dark, fascinating yet morbid rabbit hole of true crime documentary. I do find the majority of them a little ghoulish, but when done particularly well they can become incredible insights into the human condition at its worst, and the state of the legal and punitive systems that deal with the most extreme cases. How these systems fail, and why, is more of a draw for me than any attempt to understand the person behind the evil crimes. Although I must admit to some curiosity in that regard on a certain level.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.
The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.
What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.
Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.
John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.
In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.
Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.
Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Chaos Walking (2021) in Movies
Mar 3, 2021
Adapting a series of books into a movie is often a daunting task. As anyone who has seen many Stephen King adaptations can attest; plot complexity, characters, and depth are removed in order to condense the story into a two-hour or less run time.
The rise of streaming services has allowed many books to be adapted into series without having to cut much of the adult content in the books which would make it difficult for network television.
As such it makes adaptations such as “Chaos Walking” a delicate undertaking. The film is based on a series of books and stars Tom Holland as Todd; a young ma living on a distant world where there are no women and people can hear and see each other’s thoughts by a process known as “Noise”.
Their rustic colony is run with a firm hand by their Mayor (Mads Mikkelsen); who keeps those around him from seeing his thoughts which gives him a big advantage over those who rule.
When a landing craft from a mothership filled with a new wave of colonists crashes on the planet; Todd is shocked to find that the only survivor is a woman named Viola (Daisy Ridley) whose arrival disrupts the community.
The Mayor wishes to keep her from contacting her ship so they can seize it when it lands to maintain control of his empire as he sees the arrival of new individuals as a threat to his power.
Todd and Viola escape trying to reach a distant colony where she hopes to find a way to warn her ship about the danger the Mayor and his men present and they pursue the duo to keep this from happening.
The film lightly touches on the native race that Todd believes killed all the women of their colony but they are not visited save for a brief appearance. It is clear that the Mayor is hiding something and the reveal of what and why is fairly underwhelming which reduces him and most of his followers as thinly developed stock characters.
There is also the mystery as to why the Mothership does not bother to do any sort of follow up when they did not hear from their lander and like many aspects of the film; require the audience to simply go along with things and not ask too many questions to make things work.
Thankfully the two leads are interesting enough and they hold attention even when the story is slowly moving along with scene after scene of rivers, woods, and a little conversation.
One big issue with the film is the Noise as the visualization of thoughts as well as hearing them mixed in with verbal communication can get very confusing as it is like multiple voices in a crowded room.
Despite the issues, the potential is there and I found myself wondering what was next for the characters and hope that they do adapt future books in the series. While the film on its own does not work as a fully developed story’ as an introduction to the series it does enough to peak the interests for more.
3.5 out of 5
The rise of streaming services has allowed many books to be adapted into series without having to cut much of the adult content in the books which would make it difficult for network television.
As such it makes adaptations such as “Chaos Walking” a delicate undertaking. The film is based on a series of books and stars Tom Holland as Todd; a young ma living on a distant world where there are no women and people can hear and see each other’s thoughts by a process known as “Noise”.
Their rustic colony is run with a firm hand by their Mayor (Mads Mikkelsen); who keeps those around him from seeing his thoughts which gives him a big advantage over those who rule.
When a landing craft from a mothership filled with a new wave of colonists crashes on the planet; Todd is shocked to find that the only survivor is a woman named Viola (Daisy Ridley) whose arrival disrupts the community.
The Mayor wishes to keep her from contacting her ship so they can seize it when it lands to maintain control of his empire as he sees the arrival of new individuals as a threat to his power.
Todd and Viola escape trying to reach a distant colony where she hopes to find a way to warn her ship about the danger the Mayor and his men present and they pursue the duo to keep this from happening.
The film lightly touches on the native race that Todd believes killed all the women of their colony but they are not visited save for a brief appearance. It is clear that the Mayor is hiding something and the reveal of what and why is fairly underwhelming which reduces him and most of his followers as thinly developed stock characters.
There is also the mystery as to why the Mothership does not bother to do any sort of follow up when they did not hear from their lander and like many aspects of the film; require the audience to simply go along with things and not ask too many questions to make things work.
Thankfully the two leads are interesting enough and they hold attention even when the story is slowly moving along with scene after scene of rivers, woods, and a little conversation.
One big issue with the film is the Noise as the visualization of thoughts as well as hearing them mixed in with verbal communication can get very confusing as it is like multiple voices in a crowded room.
Despite the issues, the potential is there and I found myself wondering what was next for the characters and hope that they do adapt future books in the series. While the film on its own does not work as a fully developed story’ as an introduction to the series it does enough to peak the interests for more.
3.5 out of 5