Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the “Wars” back into “Star Wars”.
Expectations have been sky-high for this first in the ‘add-in’ series of Star Wars films. But with director Gareth Edwards at the helm, whose past movie track-record includes just the low-budget “Monsters” and the less than memorable “Godzilla“, I was frankly concerned.
But the English guy (with the Welsh name) has seriously delivered!
“Rogue One” (I have omitted the inane and irritating suffix “: A Star Wars Story”) tells the story behind the story of the original Episode IV: “A New Hope”. Felicity Jones (“The Theory of Everything“) plays Jyn Erso, daughter to Imperial weapons expert Mads Mikkelsen (“Doctor Strange“, “Casino Royale”). An interrupted childhood leads the delinquent Jyn on a personal journey to become a leader in the fragmenting Rebel Alliance, as a small band of heroes battle to obtain the plans for the Empire’s planet-zapping Death Star. Will they succeed (this is hardly a question worth asking given the start of Episode IV!) and at what cost?
I’m throwing it out there…. this is the best Star Wars film since “The Empire Strikes Back”. The story (John Knoll and Gary Whitta) is almost Shakespearean in its scope, leading to a moving and memorable finale. As a standalone episode within the Star Wars canon – chronologically positioned as it between “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith” and “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope” – the film marvellously knits the two together bringing in cameos from Episode III as well as (very surprising) cameos from Episode IV, now nearly 40 years old. The screenplay (by Chris “About a Boy” Weitz and Tony Gilroy, writer of the “Bourne” films) is whip-smart with great lines.
For Star Wars fans the film is also chock full of ‘Easter Eggs’ from the original Star Wars. All of these are great fun but – frankly – some don’t make a lot of sense: for example, a chance encounter with a character in the streets of Jedha City doesn’t gel with what happens an hour or two later.
After Rey in last December’s “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” we again see another kick-ass heroine and a further cinematic nod towards girl-power in the movies. But this is a nuanced heroine with more than a hint of darkness about her. Felicity Jones plays her perfectly, reflecting her transition from teenage rebel to rebel-leading teen.
In general, the darkness continues throughout the supporting cast with some of the heroes – notably the impressive Diego Luna (“The Terminal”) as Cassian Andor – managing to do some very anti-heroic things at points in the story. The rest of the cast, and especially Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang as dynamic martial arts duo Chirrut Îmwe and Baze Malbus, generate the warm fuzzies enough for you – as the audience – to really care for what happens to them. This even extends to the lump of metal in the frame – the droid K-2SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) – who could be the film’s Jar Jar Binks but manages instead to steal the best comic lines in the film.
Elsewhere Forest Whitaker (“Arrival“) is underused as rebel guerilla Saw Gerrera; Mads Mikkelsen adds gravitas to a key strategic role; and Ben Mendelsohn makes for a memorable Imperial villain. The only slightly irritating character in an otherwise stellar ensemble cast is pilot Rodhi Rook (played by Riz Ahmed from “Jason Bourne“): more for the rather pointless way his character is written than for the Londoner’s portrayal per se.
An equal member of the cast is the sublime music of Michael Giacchino, having the unenviable task of following John Williams into the Star Wars franchise. But he does a great job. After the shock of the non-traditional opening (and an abrupt and rather out of place Title shot) the style settles down, with some of the swelling music in the closing reel adding tremendously to the emotion of the finale.
The film is not quite perfect though. The first half of the film could have moved on a bit quicker to get to the breathtaking finale. And even though CGI has moved on significantly from the stick men and women walking around on the deck in “Titanic” in 1997, the state of the art (no spoilers, but you’ll know what I mean if you’ve seen the film) still has room for some improvement. (Perhaps the first of these scenes could have been as subliminal as the last for better effect).
An outstanding effort, and one I definitely want to watch again. The Bluray version will also be a ‘must-buy’ when it emerges, since – with 4 to 5 weeks of re-shoots done in the summer, and many scenes in the trailer not appearing in the final cut – there must be an enormous number of deleted (original?) scenes that may tell a very different story from the one we saw this week.
Disney must be so, so pleased at their very expensive investment in Star Wars, and fears that the Mouse would trash the brand seem to be – thankfully – unfounded.
But the English guy (with the Welsh name) has seriously delivered!
“Rogue One” (I have omitted the inane and irritating suffix “: A Star Wars Story”) tells the story behind the story of the original Episode IV: “A New Hope”. Felicity Jones (“The Theory of Everything“) plays Jyn Erso, daughter to Imperial weapons expert Mads Mikkelsen (“Doctor Strange“, “Casino Royale”). An interrupted childhood leads the delinquent Jyn on a personal journey to become a leader in the fragmenting Rebel Alliance, as a small band of heroes battle to obtain the plans for the Empire’s planet-zapping Death Star. Will they succeed (this is hardly a question worth asking given the start of Episode IV!) and at what cost?
I’m throwing it out there…. this is the best Star Wars film since “The Empire Strikes Back”. The story (John Knoll and Gary Whitta) is almost Shakespearean in its scope, leading to a moving and memorable finale. As a standalone episode within the Star Wars canon – chronologically positioned as it between “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith” and “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope” – the film marvellously knits the two together bringing in cameos from Episode III as well as (very surprising) cameos from Episode IV, now nearly 40 years old. The screenplay (by Chris “About a Boy” Weitz and Tony Gilroy, writer of the “Bourne” films) is whip-smart with great lines.
For Star Wars fans the film is also chock full of ‘Easter Eggs’ from the original Star Wars. All of these are great fun but – frankly – some don’t make a lot of sense: for example, a chance encounter with a character in the streets of Jedha City doesn’t gel with what happens an hour or two later.
After Rey in last December’s “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” we again see another kick-ass heroine and a further cinematic nod towards girl-power in the movies. But this is a nuanced heroine with more than a hint of darkness about her. Felicity Jones plays her perfectly, reflecting her transition from teenage rebel to rebel-leading teen.
In general, the darkness continues throughout the supporting cast with some of the heroes – notably the impressive Diego Luna (“The Terminal”) as Cassian Andor – managing to do some very anti-heroic things at points in the story. The rest of the cast, and especially Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang as dynamic martial arts duo Chirrut Îmwe and Baze Malbus, generate the warm fuzzies enough for you – as the audience – to really care for what happens to them. This even extends to the lump of metal in the frame – the droid K-2SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) – who could be the film’s Jar Jar Binks but manages instead to steal the best comic lines in the film.
Elsewhere Forest Whitaker (“Arrival“) is underused as rebel guerilla Saw Gerrera; Mads Mikkelsen adds gravitas to a key strategic role; and Ben Mendelsohn makes for a memorable Imperial villain. The only slightly irritating character in an otherwise stellar ensemble cast is pilot Rodhi Rook (played by Riz Ahmed from “Jason Bourne“): more for the rather pointless way his character is written than for the Londoner’s portrayal per se.
An equal member of the cast is the sublime music of Michael Giacchino, having the unenviable task of following John Williams into the Star Wars franchise. But he does a great job. After the shock of the non-traditional opening (and an abrupt and rather out of place Title shot) the style settles down, with some of the swelling music in the closing reel adding tremendously to the emotion of the finale.
The film is not quite perfect though. The first half of the film could have moved on a bit quicker to get to the breathtaking finale. And even though CGI has moved on significantly from the stick men and women walking around on the deck in “Titanic” in 1997, the state of the art (no spoilers, but you’ll know what I mean if you’ve seen the film) still has room for some improvement. (Perhaps the first of these scenes could have been as subliminal as the last for better effect).
An outstanding effort, and one I definitely want to watch again. The Bluray version will also be a ‘must-buy’ when it emerges, since – with 4 to 5 weeks of re-shoots done in the summer, and many scenes in the trailer not appearing in the final cut – there must be an enormous number of deleted (original?) scenes that may tell a very different story from the one we saw this week.
Disney must be so, so pleased at their very expensive investment in Star Wars, and fears that the Mouse would trash the brand seem to be – thankfully – unfounded.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Hopefully this truly is Last Blood.
In Sylvester Stallone's fifth and (hopefully) final outing as one-man army John Rambo, we find the eponymous hero enjoying the quiet life on the Texas ranch he returned to at the end of "Rambo (2008)".
The character is still as reflective and composed as ever, with hints and flashbacks to his ongoing struggle with PTSD following his experiences in Vietnam. He trains horses on the ranch and acts as surrogate father to his college-bound niece, played by the relatively-unknown and absolutely stunning Yvette Monreal. He also has an unfathomably complex network of tunnels dug beneath his property, which could never have been done by one man, even in the 11 years that have past since the last movie.
The first ten minutes set the scene and familiarizes the audience with characters old and new. Having watched all four previous films in preparation for this one, it's quite sad to see how much the essence of Rambo as a person has changed. The first three all followed the same theme - a reluctant warrior with a muted self-loathing of the terrible abilities he has been blessed with, begrudgingly fighting someone else's war because he can't stop himself from doing what he thinks is right. The fourth one took the series in a different yet understandable direction - he's getting older, he's retired from the world, and he's minding his own business when trouble happens to find him. Then, the old Rambo we saw in "Rambo: First Blood - Part II (1985)" comes out and lays waste to everyone. But in this latest film, you barely recognize the character compared to the previous entries. He doesn't look or feel like the Rambo we've known over the years, which means this film struggles to look and feel like a Rambo film.
The next five minutes establishes the upcoming plot of the movie (such as it is), which is transparent and predictable. It then morphs into "Taken (2008)" on steroids! It takes a nice diversion at first, showing Rambo take on an entire Mexican people-trafficking ring, only to get the living hell beaten out of him. What you might think would happen in real life, but you kind of expected Rambo to go all "Rambo" on them, so when he doesn't, it's almost a pleasant surprise.
However, normal business soon resumes. Another tussle with some of the Mexican bad guys sets up the final act, which is Rambo vs. Every Mexican Criminal Ever - clips of which you will have seen in the trailer.
This is where the film lets itself down, if I'm honest. You would expect the finale to be the big payoff, but it actually ruins what would otherwise have been a half-decent film. It would be silly of me to criticize a Rambo film for being unrealistic. That being said, there's pushing the boundaries of belief, and then there's just lazy writing!
The final act begins. Five trucks of bad guys show up. Around 20-25 armed men are shown approaching Rambo's location. It's no spoiler to say he probably kills about 50 in total. Not sure where all the disposable enemies came from, but he didn't seem to mind.
Then there's the five-minute montage of him booby-trapping his ranch prior to the bad guys showing up. Something he did without any actual evidence they would come for him - just an assumption that somewhere there's a group of people who probably want to try and kill him, so best to be prepared. The whole scene feels like what would happen if "Deadpool (2016)" and "Home Alone (1990)" had a baby. Don't get me wrong, it was mindless, cringe-inducing, blood-soaked fun, but a lot of it felt unnecessarily complicated.
And then there's the violence itself. I love an action movie that drowns in crimson as much as the next person, but a lot of the violence felt like it was there for the sake of it. Like the producers said, 'We've got the 18-certificate, so let's make use of it.' I'm sure there's a deep-rooted psychological argument to be made for it. Like it's intentionally over the top to serve as a metaphor for the horrors Rambo suffered in Vietnam or something. Personally, I don't think this film is capable of being that deep and meaningful.
I really, really wanted this film to be good. I enjoyed the others and I wanted to enjoy this one. And I did, to an extent, I guess. But the whole film felt pointless. I understand the thinking that the series needed a proper and fitting end to the character's arc. But, if I'm being honest, you could've said the last film did that. It actually provides a better ending to the character than this one. The way he returned from Burma and is last seen approaching the family ranch after 30+ years away... you could've ended it there and left it to the audience's imaginations as to how he lived out the rest of his life. But money talks, and unfortunately, it ruined an otherwise successful and enjoyable franchise that had simply ran its course. A prime example of not knowing when to quit, this sentiment is echoed by Stallone's aging appearance, which takes away what credibility this character had left.
A real shame, but sadly, this isn't a film that's worth watching, unless you're a true die-hard fan of the character, in which case you'll want to watch it just because, but you'll be left disappointed.
The character is still as reflective and composed as ever, with hints and flashbacks to his ongoing struggle with PTSD following his experiences in Vietnam. He trains horses on the ranch and acts as surrogate father to his college-bound niece, played by the relatively-unknown and absolutely stunning Yvette Monreal. He also has an unfathomably complex network of tunnels dug beneath his property, which could never have been done by one man, even in the 11 years that have past since the last movie.
The first ten minutes set the scene and familiarizes the audience with characters old and new. Having watched all four previous films in preparation for this one, it's quite sad to see how much the essence of Rambo as a person has changed. The first three all followed the same theme - a reluctant warrior with a muted self-loathing of the terrible abilities he has been blessed with, begrudgingly fighting someone else's war because he can't stop himself from doing what he thinks is right. The fourth one took the series in a different yet understandable direction - he's getting older, he's retired from the world, and he's minding his own business when trouble happens to find him. Then, the old Rambo we saw in "Rambo: First Blood - Part II (1985)" comes out and lays waste to everyone. But in this latest film, you barely recognize the character compared to the previous entries. He doesn't look or feel like the Rambo we've known over the years, which means this film struggles to look and feel like a Rambo film.
The next five minutes establishes the upcoming plot of the movie (such as it is), which is transparent and predictable. It then morphs into "Taken (2008)" on steroids! It takes a nice diversion at first, showing Rambo take on an entire Mexican people-trafficking ring, only to get the living hell beaten out of him. What you might think would happen in real life, but you kind of expected Rambo to go all "Rambo" on them, so when he doesn't, it's almost a pleasant surprise.
However, normal business soon resumes. Another tussle with some of the Mexican bad guys sets up the final act, which is Rambo vs. Every Mexican Criminal Ever - clips of which you will have seen in the trailer.
This is where the film lets itself down, if I'm honest. You would expect the finale to be the big payoff, but it actually ruins what would otherwise have been a half-decent film. It would be silly of me to criticize a Rambo film for being unrealistic. That being said, there's pushing the boundaries of belief, and then there's just lazy writing!
The final act begins. Five trucks of bad guys show up. Around 20-25 armed men are shown approaching Rambo's location. It's no spoiler to say he probably kills about 50 in total. Not sure where all the disposable enemies came from, but he didn't seem to mind.
Then there's the five-minute montage of him booby-trapping his ranch prior to the bad guys showing up. Something he did without any actual evidence they would come for him - just an assumption that somewhere there's a group of people who probably want to try and kill him, so best to be prepared. The whole scene feels like what would happen if "Deadpool (2016)" and "Home Alone (1990)" had a baby. Don't get me wrong, it was mindless, cringe-inducing, blood-soaked fun, but a lot of it felt unnecessarily complicated.
And then there's the violence itself. I love an action movie that drowns in crimson as much as the next person, but a lot of the violence felt like it was there for the sake of it. Like the producers said, 'We've got the 18-certificate, so let's make use of it.' I'm sure there's a deep-rooted psychological argument to be made for it. Like it's intentionally over the top to serve as a metaphor for the horrors Rambo suffered in Vietnam or something. Personally, I don't think this film is capable of being that deep and meaningful.
I really, really wanted this film to be good. I enjoyed the others and I wanted to enjoy this one. And I did, to an extent, I guess. But the whole film felt pointless. I understand the thinking that the series needed a proper and fitting end to the character's arc. But, if I'm being honest, you could've said the last film did that. It actually provides a better ending to the character than this one. The way he returned from Burma and is last seen approaching the family ranch after 30+ years away... you could've ended it there and left it to the audience's imaginations as to how he lived out the rest of his life. But money talks, and unfortunately, it ruined an otherwise successful and enjoyable franchise that had simply ran its course. A prime example of not knowing when to quit, this sentiment is echoed by Stallone's aging appearance, which takes away what credibility this character had left.
A real shame, but sadly, this isn't a film that's worth watching, unless you're a true die-hard fan of the character, in which case you'll want to watch it just because, but you'll be left disappointed.
Darren (1599 KP) rated American Assassin (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: American Assassin starts as normal American Mitch Rapp (O’Brien) sees his fiancée gunned down by terrorists and himself left for dead, 18 months later he has trained himself to eliminate the men responsible but little does he know that CIA agent Irene Kennedy (Lathan) has been watching his action.
When Kennedy arranges to save Mitch from a certain death, she recruits him for a special section of the CIA working under Stan Hurley (Keaton) who trains agents to go undercover but if caught or killed no one will come for them.
The first mission is to locate nuclear weapon components before former agent Ghost (Kitsch) can use or sell them giving somebody in the world a nuclear bomb that can wipe out millions.
Thoughts on American Assassin
Characters – Mitch Rapp is an American that loses everything at the hands of terrorists, he learns combat and language skills to go undercover in the terrorist cell for revenge, he gets recruited by the CIA where he must learn discipline but this is where he struggles because he always wants to go after the criminal. This character does feel like a young Jack Bauer because of his rule breaking attitude for the right reasons. Stan Hurley is the off the grid trainer who takes Mitch as part of his unit, he gets tired of the Mitch’s lack of discipline but knows he needs him to capture his former student. Irene Kennedy is the deputy director of the CIA, she sees the potential in Mitch forcing Hurley to take him on, but also falls into the standard CIA director figure that will risk their reputation to prove others wrong. Ghost is the former trainee of Hurley that is using all the skills gained to stay one step ahead of him while collecting the nuclear components.
Performances – Dylan O’Brien is an actor that got into the young adult films but this role showed an adult character, showing he could go onto action films without looking like the complete actions star. Michael Keaton looks like he did enjoy the mentoring role while also getting the action role he isn’t known for. Sanaa Lathan is good in her role even if the character is very generic. Taylor Kitsch does seem to be on the recovering his career tour showing everyone just how talented he is in the villainous role.
Story – The story does play out like an origin story for Mitch Rapp in the CIA, we see what motivated him to accept the offer, we see what makes him different from other potential agents. We have the standard level of threat, potential nuclear weapon and a story of needing to learn discipline to become a top agent while keeping his unique traits. This is an easy to watch but could easily be an over the top pilot for a television show.
Action/Thriller – The action starts out brutal with the terrorist attack, we also fall into the car chases, fights and shoot outs which are fun to watch, the final action sequences is just popcorn wow.
Settings – The settings take us on a tour of Europe which is fine and is giving us an iconic location moment, which is easy to locate for us.
Special Effects – The effects in the opening sequence are brutal but then it just becomes by the book stuff.
Scene of the Movie – Speed Boat fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – While it started with violent level, it did turn into Jack Bauer origin feeling.
Chances of Sequel: Easily could have one.
Post Credits Scene: No
Final Thoughts – This is an action film that is fun but not one of the greatest of the year.
Overall: Fun action packed blast.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/09/17/american-assassin-2017/
When Kennedy arranges to save Mitch from a certain death, she recruits him for a special section of the CIA working under Stan Hurley (Keaton) who trains agents to go undercover but if caught or killed no one will come for them.
The first mission is to locate nuclear weapon components before former agent Ghost (Kitsch) can use or sell them giving somebody in the world a nuclear bomb that can wipe out millions.
Thoughts on American Assassin
Characters – Mitch Rapp is an American that loses everything at the hands of terrorists, he learns combat and language skills to go undercover in the terrorist cell for revenge, he gets recruited by the CIA where he must learn discipline but this is where he struggles because he always wants to go after the criminal. This character does feel like a young Jack Bauer because of his rule breaking attitude for the right reasons. Stan Hurley is the off the grid trainer who takes Mitch as part of his unit, he gets tired of the Mitch’s lack of discipline but knows he needs him to capture his former student. Irene Kennedy is the deputy director of the CIA, she sees the potential in Mitch forcing Hurley to take him on, but also falls into the standard CIA director figure that will risk their reputation to prove others wrong. Ghost is the former trainee of Hurley that is using all the skills gained to stay one step ahead of him while collecting the nuclear components.
Performances – Dylan O’Brien is an actor that got into the young adult films but this role showed an adult character, showing he could go onto action films without looking like the complete actions star. Michael Keaton looks like he did enjoy the mentoring role while also getting the action role he isn’t known for. Sanaa Lathan is good in her role even if the character is very generic. Taylor Kitsch does seem to be on the recovering his career tour showing everyone just how talented he is in the villainous role.
Story – The story does play out like an origin story for Mitch Rapp in the CIA, we see what motivated him to accept the offer, we see what makes him different from other potential agents. We have the standard level of threat, potential nuclear weapon and a story of needing to learn discipline to become a top agent while keeping his unique traits. This is an easy to watch but could easily be an over the top pilot for a television show.
Action/Thriller – The action starts out brutal with the terrorist attack, we also fall into the car chases, fights and shoot outs which are fun to watch, the final action sequences is just popcorn wow.
Settings – The settings take us on a tour of Europe which is fine and is giving us an iconic location moment, which is easy to locate for us.
Special Effects – The effects in the opening sequence are brutal but then it just becomes by the book stuff.
Scene of the Movie – Speed Boat fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – While it started with violent level, it did turn into Jack Bauer origin feeling.
Chances of Sequel: Easily could have one.
Post Credits Scene: No
Final Thoughts – This is an action film that is fun but not one of the greatest of the year.
Overall: Fun action packed blast.
https://moviesreview101.com/2017/09/17/american-assassin-2017/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lost Daughter (2021) in Movies
Feb 17, 2022
Strong Acting and Direction
The nice thing about being fanatical about catching all of the Oscar Nominated films in the “Major” categories is that it forces me to watch films that, normally, my interests would not gravitate towards - and, most of the time, I am rewarded and my mind and emotions are expanded because of this.
Such is the case with THE LOST DAUGHTER, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s film Directing debut (she is also Oscar nominated for Adapted Screenplay) that follows the emotional journey of a College Professor (the great Olivia Colman) on Holiday in Greece who is forced to confront her past decisions amidst the emotional toil that these decisions have created.
Normally, these introspective, “Art House” films are not my cup of tea and during the first half of this film, I did find myself wandering a bit. This is because Colman’s character of Leda arrives on-screen at the onset of this film heavy with emotional (almost crippling so) baggage and it is almost too much to bear…which is the point. The movie, then, peels the layers back slowly to reveal why.
It is, yet again, a tour-de-force performance by Colman - who just might win ANOTHER Oscar for this work - it is that strong without being show-offey (if that is a word). Colman becomes Leda and delves strongly into the introspection, guilt, hurt and confusion that this character has. She allows the character to breathe (sometimes in gulps of crying). It is the type of character (and performance) that film today rarely allows time for on screen.
Credit for this has to go to Directer/ScreenWriter Maggie Gyllenhaal who adapted Elana Ferrante’s novel into a quiet, retrospective film. The adaptation works well for someone who has no prior knowledge of the novel and the direction and camerawork of this film is unwavering in it’s look into a character that is flawed and at times unlikeable. It is a strong Directorial and Screenwriting debut for Gyllenhaal.
Jessie Buckley is also Oscar nominated (for Best Supporting Actress) for her role as the younger Leda - a character who’s actions strongly affect the older Leda. While this character is not as nuanced as Colman’s version of Leda, she still is strong and Buckley’s performance is just as confident, self-centered, and fierce showing the roots of the person that would become Colman’s character. This is only the 3rd time in Oscars history that 2 actresses have been nominated for Academy Awards for playing younger and older versions of the same person (Kate Winslet/Gloria Stewart playing Rose in TITANIC and Kate Winslet/Judi Dench playing Iris in IRIS).
Ed Harris shows up as the proprietor of the space that Leda is renting in Greece and is a welcome presence (as always). The surprises to me in this film were the performances of Dakota Johnson and Jack Farthing. Johnson is proving that she is more than just the “50 SHADES” girl and spars with Colman quite well, more than holding her own. Farthing, who played the cold and distant Prince Charles in SPENCER is the husband of the younger Leda and he is the polar opposite of Prince Charles - open, loving and emotional. It is fun to see 2 clearly differing performances by the same actor. Farthing is someone to keep an eye on.
As is Gyllenhaal, Colman and THE LOST DAUGHTER. It is a strong piece of film-making and not an easy watch. But, if you can click into the emotion of this flawed character - and stick with this film through the ugliness and mistakes that Leda selfishly makes, you will be rewarded with a character study, the likes of which is rare in film today.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with THE LOST DAUGHTER, Maggie Gyllenhaal’s film Directing debut (she is also Oscar nominated for Adapted Screenplay) that follows the emotional journey of a College Professor (the great Olivia Colman) on Holiday in Greece who is forced to confront her past decisions amidst the emotional toil that these decisions have created.
Normally, these introspective, “Art House” films are not my cup of tea and during the first half of this film, I did find myself wandering a bit. This is because Colman’s character of Leda arrives on-screen at the onset of this film heavy with emotional (almost crippling so) baggage and it is almost too much to bear…which is the point. The movie, then, peels the layers back slowly to reveal why.
It is, yet again, a tour-de-force performance by Colman - who just might win ANOTHER Oscar for this work - it is that strong without being show-offey (if that is a word). Colman becomes Leda and delves strongly into the introspection, guilt, hurt and confusion that this character has. She allows the character to breathe (sometimes in gulps of crying). It is the type of character (and performance) that film today rarely allows time for on screen.
Credit for this has to go to Directer/ScreenWriter Maggie Gyllenhaal who adapted Elana Ferrante’s novel into a quiet, retrospective film. The adaptation works well for someone who has no prior knowledge of the novel and the direction and camerawork of this film is unwavering in it’s look into a character that is flawed and at times unlikeable. It is a strong Directorial and Screenwriting debut for Gyllenhaal.
Jessie Buckley is also Oscar nominated (for Best Supporting Actress) for her role as the younger Leda - a character who’s actions strongly affect the older Leda. While this character is not as nuanced as Colman’s version of Leda, she still is strong and Buckley’s performance is just as confident, self-centered, and fierce showing the roots of the person that would become Colman’s character. This is only the 3rd time in Oscars history that 2 actresses have been nominated for Academy Awards for playing younger and older versions of the same person (Kate Winslet/Gloria Stewart playing Rose in TITANIC and Kate Winslet/Judi Dench playing Iris in IRIS).
Ed Harris shows up as the proprietor of the space that Leda is renting in Greece and is a welcome presence (as always). The surprises to me in this film were the performances of Dakota Johnson and Jack Farthing. Johnson is proving that she is more than just the “50 SHADES” girl and spars with Colman quite well, more than holding her own. Farthing, who played the cold and distant Prince Charles in SPENCER is the husband of the younger Leda and he is the polar opposite of Prince Charles - open, loving and emotional. It is fun to see 2 clearly differing performances by the same actor. Farthing is someone to keep an eye on.
As is Gyllenhaal, Colman and THE LOST DAUGHTER. It is a strong piece of film-making and not an easy watch. But, if you can click into the emotion of this flawed character - and stick with this film through the ugliness and mistakes that Leda selfishly makes, you will be rewarded with a character study, the likes of which is rare in film today.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) in Movies
Sep 27, 2017
C is for Candy
Contains spoilers, click to show
And yes, I certainly mean eye candy. Johnny Depp is gorgeous despite the makeup artists’ attempts to make him seem pale and awkward. My brain isn’t working properly due to lack of sleep so I’ll just go ahead and warn you that this is more a regurgitation than a review. Read at your own risk, because I even give the entire ending of the movie away…
This is the story of Charlie Bucket, an impoverished but genuinely good-natured child. His dream is one of millions: to win a Golden Ticket, and tour Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory in the hopes of obtaining an even bigger prize. If this plot sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, or have read the book. I profess my ignorance, for I haven’t read the book Roald Dahl wrote, and therefore have no idea which movie version adheres more strictly to the original text.
Let’s move on by more closely examining Burton’s version. Despite some of the world’s most recalcitrant children winning the four other tickets, Charlie lucks out and becomes the recipient of the last Golden Ticket. This brings great joy to his family and even makes the bed-ridden Grandpa Joe ambulatory again. I love Charlie’s family, especially because his Dad works in a toothpaste factory but everyone in the family has nasty teeth.
The glorious day of the tour arrives and each child shows up with a parental or grandparental guardian. They are introduced first to Willy Wonka by means of a puppet show, which ends in a glorious and unintentional fire. With the smoldering puppets dying disturbingly in the background, Wonka appears with cue cards, giving the impression that the man has no idea how to socially interact. The group then enters the factory.
The first child to be eliminated from the contest is Augustus Gloop. The group has been given free reign of a room made entirely of candy. Augustus cannot resist the lake of chocolate, and he falls in. He is sucked up a tube that leads to the fudge room. Then the Oompa Loompas appear and perform a song engineered for this particular predictable tragedy.
The Oompa Loompas in Burton’s version are short, and they do not have orange hair, but they all have the same face and body. Deep Roy, the actor portraying the Oompa Loompas, deserved an Oscar for effort in my book, for the special features indicate how very involved he was with this production. The songs sung by the Oompa Loompas varied significantly from those in the older version. In fact, I enjoyed how each song of admonishment involved a specific genre of music.
Next Violet Beauregard, the competitive one, is turned into a blueberry by chewing gum. And then we have the case of the sad and supremely spoiled Veruca Salt, who ends up getting thrown down a garbage chute by some very judgmental and highly trained squirrels. After each young lady has been expelled from the contest, the Oompa Loompas say adieu with a musical number.
Throughout the film, Wonka has flashbacks about his father. It seems the elder Wonka was a dentist, and he forbade the young Willy to eat candy. Several scenes show Willy Wonka defying the will of his father, which ultimately led Willy to be a world-renowned chocolatier. Though it was nice to have this subplot as an explanation for some of Wonka’s erratic behavior, I found that I like Gene Wilder’s portrayal of Willy Wonka better. He was whimsical and strange, but the film and the actor seemed to offer no explanation as to how he got that way.
Mike Teavee, a young boy with the attention span of a gnat on amphetamines, is the last of the factory’s victims. He decides to teleport himself into a television screen, which I’m sure seemed like a good idea at the time. Teavee is shown in peril as an Oompa Loompa flips the channels. Now incredibly small, Wonka decides that the best remedy for Mike is the taffy pulling machine.
Charlie is the only child left, and Wonka ushers Charlie and Grandpa Joe into the glass elevator. According to the button, they are going up and out. Indeed, they do, eventually stopping when they crash through the roof of the Bucket house. The grand prize is revealed: Willy Wonka is giving Charlie the factory. This becomes impossible when Wonka forces Charlie to choose between factory and family. Eventually, Wonka reconciles his Daddy issues and allows Charlie’s family to stay at the factory.
The visual effects in this film were amazing. As mentioned previously, Deep Roy was incredible as the face of the many Oompa Loompas. I thought the child actors in this film were also impressive in how they perfectly captured their respective vices. Overall, this was a good film. And yet I still miss moments from the older film, especially the poem with “the grisly reaper mowing.” Call me sentimental…
This is the story of Charlie Bucket, an impoverished but genuinely good-natured child. His dream is one of millions: to win a Golden Ticket, and tour Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory in the hopes of obtaining an even bigger prize. If this plot sounds familiar, it’s because you’ve seen Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, or have read the book. I profess my ignorance, for I haven’t read the book Roald Dahl wrote, and therefore have no idea which movie version adheres more strictly to the original text.
Let’s move on by more closely examining Burton’s version. Despite some of the world’s most recalcitrant children winning the four other tickets, Charlie lucks out and becomes the recipient of the last Golden Ticket. This brings great joy to his family and even makes the bed-ridden Grandpa Joe ambulatory again. I love Charlie’s family, especially because his Dad works in a toothpaste factory but everyone in the family has nasty teeth.
The glorious day of the tour arrives and each child shows up with a parental or grandparental guardian. They are introduced first to Willy Wonka by means of a puppet show, which ends in a glorious and unintentional fire. With the smoldering puppets dying disturbingly in the background, Wonka appears with cue cards, giving the impression that the man has no idea how to socially interact. The group then enters the factory.
The first child to be eliminated from the contest is Augustus Gloop. The group has been given free reign of a room made entirely of candy. Augustus cannot resist the lake of chocolate, and he falls in. He is sucked up a tube that leads to the fudge room. Then the Oompa Loompas appear and perform a song engineered for this particular predictable tragedy.
The Oompa Loompas in Burton’s version are short, and they do not have orange hair, but they all have the same face and body. Deep Roy, the actor portraying the Oompa Loompas, deserved an Oscar for effort in my book, for the special features indicate how very involved he was with this production. The songs sung by the Oompa Loompas varied significantly from those in the older version. In fact, I enjoyed how each song of admonishment involved a specific genre of music.
Next Violet Beauregard, the competitive one, is turned into a blueberry by chewing gum. And then we have the case of the sad and supremely spoiled Veruca Salt, who ends up getting thrown down a garbage chute by some very judgmental and highly trained squirrels. After each young lady has been expelled from the contest, the Oompa Loompas say adieu with a musical number.
Throughout the film, Wonka has flashbacks about his father. It seems the elder Wonka was a dentist, and he forbade the young Willy to eat candy. Several scenes show Willy Wonka defying the will of his father, which ultimately led Willy to be a world-renowned chocolatier. Though it was nice to have this subplot as an explanation for some of Wonka’s erratic behavior, I found that I like Gene Wilder’s portrayal of Willy Wonka better. He was whimsical and strange, but the film and the actor seemed to offer no explanation as to how he got that way.
Mike Teavee, a young boy with the attention span of a gnat on amphetamines, is the last of the factory’s victims. He decides to teleport himself into a television screen, which I’m sure seemed like a good idea at the time. Teavee is shown in peril as an Oompa Loompa flips the channels. Now incredibly small, Wonka decides that the best remedy for Mike is the taffy pulling machine.
Charlie is the only child left, and Wonka ushers Charlie and Grandpa Joe into the glass elevator. According to the button, they are going up and out. Indeed, they do, eventually stopping when they crash through the roof of the Bucket house. The grand prize is revealed: Willy Wonka is giving Charlie the factory. This becomes impossible when Wonka forces Charlie to choose between factory and family. Eventually, Wonka reconciles his Daddy issues and allows Charlie’s family to stay at the factory.
The visual effects in this film were amazing. As mentioned previously, Deep Roy was incredible as the face of the many Oompa Loompas. I thought the child actors in this film were also impressive in how they perfectly captured their respective vices. Overall, this was a good film. And yet I still miss moments from the older film, especially the poem with “the grisly reaper mowing.” Call me sentimental…
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Aeronauts (2019) in Movies
Oct 27, 2019
Firstly I'd like to address the accuracy of this film. As soon as I got out of the screening I looked up the story and it took the shine off a little. James Glaisher was indeed involved in these experiments but his companion was Henry Coxwell and not the fictional Amelia Wren. Wren is at least based on female aeronauts of the time, Sophie Blanchard and Margaret Graham, which is a slight comfort. I can of course understand why they did it, the film has a definite air of romance about it and the inclusion of a larger than life character and her backstory does give the film a boost that it might not have had on the original story.
The second thing I would also like to mention is that you need to see this in IMAX, it's been filmed for it and though that's not how I saw it I know it will be amazing.
There's a lot in The Aeronauts that makes you stop and collect your thoughts. The experience of being in the balloon is captured perfectly through shots of the city below and the vast expanses of clouds and sky... the word wonderous is the only thing that seems fitting.
I like that the story doesn't dwell on filling in the audience on history before the main event. During their flight we jump back for relevant snippets as needed and it adds to the emotion of the scenes as we return to the context. It also helps to pad out the timeline in what is almost in real-time. The record breaking flight was roughly 2.5 hours, the film runs for 1 hour 40 minutes, having watched it I don't think I'd mind seeing a 2.5 hour version.
Eddie Redmayne is high on my "nope" list when it comes to movies, I can't watch Fantastic Beasts without getting annoyed and as such I haven't gone back to watch any of his other films. In The Aeronauts though I found him to be much less of a frustrating watch, some of the mannerisms are still there but I was definitely won over by his performance. (Please do recommend your favourite films from him in the comments.) He really managed to capture the obsession for knowledge in a very natural way and I found it very engaging.
Felicity Jones as out fictional Amelia Wren makes a great show of the theatrics and transition smoothly to the seriousness needed to convey their situation once they were in flight. I thought her role was incredibly well crafted and she made every moment up in that balloon very real for the audience.
The pair work amazingly together on screen and that's not really surprising seeing as they've worked together before on The Theory Of Everything. I would say that the chemistry they'd already developed helped to make that tiny basket really come to life for the viewer.
A special shout out to Bella who played Posey the dog, I have to assume that she didn't do her own stunts but regardless it was a great performance.
I was very pleased that they didn't feel the need to fill those beautiful silences. As they soared higher into the sky I'm sure they could have filled the gap with peaceful classical music and still been impressive but the visuals are so good that they really didn't need anything.
I don't want to touch much of the second half of the film because it really does need to be seen but it certainly doesn't disappoint. Everything escalates with the ascent and from camera work to effects it all comes together for a finale that has you glued to the screen.
As you can tell I really enjoyed The Aeronauts and I'm looking forward to an Unlimited Screening of it again soon. I have one tip for you, go in your summer clothes when you see it. No, I haven't gone mad(der), it's a great way to get a free 4DX experience by sitting near the air conditioning. You'll get colder and colder as the film progresses and you'll really feel like you're in the balloon with them.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-aeronauts-movie-review.html
The second thing I would also like to mention is that you need to see this in IMAX, it's been filmed for it and though that's not how I saw it I know it will be amazing.
There's a lot in The Aeronauts that makes you stop and collect your thoughts. The experience of being in the balloon is captured perfectly through shots of the city below and the vast expanses of clouds and sky... the word wonderous is the only thing that seems fitting.
I like that the story doesn't dwell on filling in the audience on history before the main event. During their flight we jump back for relevant snippets as needed and it adds to the emotion of the scenes as we return to the context. It also helps to pad out the timeline in what is almost in real-time. The record breaking flight was roughly 2.5 hours, the film runs for 1 hour 40 minutes, having watched it I don't think I'd mind seeing a 2.5 hour version.
Eddie Redmayne is high on my "nope" list when it comes to movies, I can't watch Fantastic Beasts without getting annoyed and as such I haven't gone back to watch any of his other films. In The Aeronauts though I found him to be much less of a frustrating watch, some of the mannerisms are still there but I was definitely won over by his performance. (Please do recommend your favourite films from him in the comments.) He really managed to capture the obsession for knowledge in a very natural way and I found it very engaging.
Felicity Jones as out fictional Amelia Wren makes a great show of the theatrics and transition smoothly to the seriousness needed to convey their situation once they were in flight. I thought her role was incredibly well crafted and she made every moment up in that balloon very real for the audience.
The pair work amazingly together on screen and that's not really surprising seeing as they've worked together before on The Theory Of Everything. I would say that the chemistry they'd already developed helped to make that tiny basket really come to life for the viewer.
A special shout out to Bella who played Posey the dog, I have to assume that she didn't do her own stunts but regardless it was a great performance.
I was very pleased that they didn't feel the need to fill those beautiful silences. As they soared higher into the sky I'm sure they could have filled the gap with peaceful classical music and still been impressive but the visuals are so good that they really didn't need anything.
I don't want to touch much of the second half of the film because it really does need to be seen but it certainly doesn't disappoint. Everything escalates with the ascent and from camera work to effects it all comes together for a finale that has you glued to the screen.
As you can tell I really enjoyed The Aeronauts and I'm looking forward to an Unlimited Screening of it again soon. I have one tip for you, go in your summer clothes when you see it. No, I haven't gone mad(der), it's a great way to get a free 4DX experience by sitting near the air conditioning. You'll get colder and colder as the film progresses and you'll really feel like you're in the balloon with them.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-aeronauts-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Suburbicon (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Suburbicon is a picturesque community built to free families from all the hustle and bustle of the big city but with all the amenities a community will need. For all intents in purposes Suburbicon is the ideal place to raise a family in the 1950s. That is exactly what the Lodge family is doing. That is until the night Nicky (Noah Jupe) is awoken by his father, Gardner (Matt Damon), and told that there are two men in the house. The two criminals, Sloan and Louis (Glenn Fleshler and Alex Hassell), move the family to the kitchen and tie Nicky, Gardner, Nicky’s mother Rose (Julianne Moore) and Rose’s sister Margaret (also Julianne Moore) to chairs and put them to sleep using chloroform. When Nicky awakens in the hospital his father and aunt are waiting for him but sadly his mother was overdosed with chloroform and died. After the funeral it is decided by Gardner that Aunt Margaret should come stay with them. When officer Hightower (Jack Conley) calls to let them know they have found two possible suspects Gardner rushes to the police station to look at a lineup. Gardner arrives and is surprised to find Margaret and Nicky there. He asks that Nicky be left outside to save him from the trauma. After a line of potential criminals are paraded in front of Gardner and Margaret both agree that the perpetrators are not there. When they turn around they are surprised to see Nicky with a shocked look on his face as he is staring directly at Sloan and Louis. Nicky now knows that something is going on with his mother’s death and he may be trapped in a house with the two people who are responsible. He is not the only one that thinks something is amiss an insurance investigator, Bud Cooper (Oscar Isaac), shows up with questions about the policy. Is the Suburbicon truly the sanctuary that it looks like from the outside or is there something sinister happening behind closed doors?
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Kim Possible (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
My name is Emma, and I still love Kim Possible. It's great fun and I will fight anyone who says it isn't. That is if we're talking about the animated series... that is gold, the live action film is not even tin foil.
I love Disney TV movies but I really wish they'd stick to originals or property that was already live action... stop remaking things that really don't need it.
Let's address the casting first.
Sean Giambrone as Ron was a solid bit of casting, the right amount of awkward and bumbling, the only thing is that for anyone who watches The Goldbergs he might just be a little too recognisable, but then I doubt many people will watch both of these things. Michael P. Northey as Mr Barkin, he was good, I was generally impressed... but in a world where we have Patrick Warburton why would we not cast Patrick Warburton? Patton Oswalt does evil genius voice fantastically and as Professor Demeantor he was a great pick. Getting a narrow pass, and it's the very finest of passess, Todd Stashwick. I enjoy him when he pops up in shows but he's no Drakken. He was also done wrong by the make-up department.
Everyone else? That's a no. Possibly the worst casting was on the Possible family themselves. I adore Alyson Hannigan but her Mrs. Dr. P. was no bueno. Same goes for Mr. Dr. P. After seeing them on screen I kind of assumed the story was going to revolve around them having been kidnapped and replaced by Bebes with extra nice programming. Jim and Tim were devoid of any of the character their cartoon counterparts had. And then there's Kim, I'm not sure there would have been anyone I'd have been happy with in this role but they've managed to create something very odd in this casting. Live action Kim acts physically like the cartoon does and yet somehow the personality didn't make the crossover with it.
The idea to take Kim down from the inside is one we've seen before with Eric the synthodrone who was used to further the Little Diablo world domination plan. It's a good narative and the twist we're given here isn't a bad one but the execution feels off.
The film turns the Kim Possible formula into a women kicking ass story but they do it really badly. Mrs. Dr. P. and Nana P. are brought on board and then just used as padding and left to be inept in a corner, it's a poor use of characters and a poor use of source material.
Of course the most important part is did they do Rufus right On the whole he wasn't bad and he certainly got his normal opportunity to come to the rescue so I'm going to say good job on that.
What you should do
Don't call her, don't beep her, if you want to watch Kim Possible then watch the series, this film needs to be forgotten in the depths of Disney+.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to fly through the air like I'm a cartoon character.
I love Disney TV movies but I really wish they'd stick to originals or property that was already live action... stop remaking things that really don't need it.
Let's address the casting first.
Sean Giambrone as Ron was a solid bit of casting, the right amount of awkward and bumbling, the only thing is that for anyone who watches The Goldbergs he might just be a little too recognisable, but then I doubt many people will watch both of these things. Michael P. Northey as Mr Barkin, he was good, I was generally impressed... but in a world where we have Patrick Warburton why would we not cast Patrick Warburton? Patton Oswalt does evil genius voice fantastically and as Professor Demeantor he was a great pick. Getting a narrow pass, and it's the very finest of passess, Todd Stashwick. I enjoy him when he pops up in shows but he's no Drakken. He was also done wrong by the make-up department.
Everyone else? That's a no. Possibly the worst casting was on the Possible family themselves. I adore Alyson Hannigan but her Mrs. Dr. P. was no bueno. Same goes for Mr. Dr. P. After seeing them on screen I kind of assumed the story was going to revolve around them having been kidnapped and replaced by Bebes with extra nice programming. Jim and Tim were devoid of any of the character their cartoon counterparts had. And then there's Kim, I'm not sure there would have been anyone I'd have been happy with in this role but they've managed to create something very odd in this casting. Live action Kim acts physically like the cartoon does and yet somehow the personality didn't make the crossover with it.
The idea to take Kim down from the inside is one we've seen before with Eric the synthodrone who was used to further the Little Diablo world domination plan. It's a good narative and the twist we're given here isn't a bad one but the execution feels off.
The film turns the Kim Possible formula into a women kicking ass story but they do it really badly. Mrs. Dr. P. and Nana P. are brought on board and then just used as padding and left to be inept in a corner, it's a poor use of characters and a poor use of source material.
Of course the most important part is did they do Rufus right On the whole he wasn't bad and he certainly got his normal opportunity to come to the rescue so I'm going to say good job on that.
What you should do
Don't call her, don't beep her, if you want to watch Kim Possible then watch the series, this film needs to be forgotten in the depths of Disney+.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to fly through the air like I'm a cartoon character.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019 (Updated Aug 3, 2019)
WBs second entry into the DCEU is a messy misstep.
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's the big one that comic fans have been waiting decades to see come to life on the big screen, the one that was infamously teased in I Am Legend, the one that was going to match The Dark Knight Returns, and it's just oh so dissapointing.
After Warner Bros. kicked off the DCEU franchise with Man of Steel, a film that I thought was actually pretty good, I was full of Hope, and couldn't wait to see what they did with all of these beloved characters from years of DC stories.
When it was announced that the sequel would feature Batman in a loose adaption of TDKR, I was even more excited. When it was announced that this film would introduce the core members of the Justice League, I started to become concerned. It just screamed that Warner were trying to catch up with the already established MCU with a single film. It turns out that my concerns were justified.
The absolute biggest problem with Batman V Superman is that it just tried to do too much. And in doing so, creates a messy and often silly narrative.
The set up is pretty good, the opening scene of Metropolis being levelled whilst Bruce Wayne desperately tries to save his colleagues is pretty thrilling. It gives Batman a good, solid reason to want to fight Superman and neutralise this alien threat.
The plot is needlessly complicated when Lex Luthor gets involved (not quite sure what Jessie Eisenberg was going for in his weird portrayal), forcing Superman into a confrontation with Batman by means of kidnapping his mother.
When the big beat down finally arrived, it lasts just a few minutes before they become great friends very suddenly (due to their mothers infamously having the same name).
Not long after this, Wonder Woman is thrown into the mix (because reasons) and then they all fight Doomsday (because why the hell not) effectively cramming six movies worth of material into one very underwhelming and silly movie.
The mind boggles.
The Justice League are introduced though a series of short videos such as CCTV footage etc, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.
It's not all bad though. Ben Affleck as Batman is pretty inspired casting and is actually great. He's older, jaded, and pretty stocky, and his action scenes are ripped straight from the beloved Arkham video games. It's almost like Zack Snyder actually wanted to make a Batman film or something....
Wonder Womans presence is wholly unessecary, but for what it's worth, she's pretty badass, looks the part, and Gal Gadot does a good job of bringing her to life.
I also enjoyed the Knightmare scene hinting at Darkseid further down the line.
Unfortunately, the good parts are wrapped up in shambles. The MCU has been so finely crafted over the years, and it really confuses me why WB didn't take a similar route with the DC universe - a universe that has arguably better characters.
After Warner Bros. kicked off the DCEU franchise with Man of Steel, a film that I thought was actually pretty good, I was full of Hope, and couldn't wait to see what they did with all of these beloved characters from years of DC stories.
When it was announced that the sequel would feature Batman in a loose adaption of TDKR, I was even more excited. When it was announced that this film would introduce the core members of the Justice League, I started to become concerned. It just screamed that Warner were trying to catch up with the already established MCU with a single film. It turns out that my concerns were justified.
The absolute biggest problem with Batman V Superman is that it just tried to do too much. And in doing so, creates a messy and often silly narrative.
The set up is pretty good, the opening scene of Metropolis being levelled whilst Bruce Wayne desperately tries to save his colleagues is pretty thrilling. It gives Batman a good, solid reason to want to fight Superman and neutralise this alien threat.
The plot is needlessly complicated when Lex Luthor gets involved (not quite sure what Jessie Eisenberg was going for in his weird portrayal), forcing Superman into a confrontation with Batman by means of kidnapping his mother.
When the big beat down finally arrived, it lasts just a few minutes before they become great friends very suddenly (due to their mothers infamously having the same name).
Not long after this, Wonder Woman is thrown into the mix (because reasons) and then they all fight Doomsday (because why the hell not) effectively cramming six movies worth of material into one very underwhelming and silly movie.
The mind boggles.
The Justice League are introduced though a series of short videos such as CCTV footage etc, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.
It's not all bad though. Ben Affleck as Batman is pretty inspired casting and is actually great. He's older, jaded, and pretty stocky, and his action scenes are ripped straight from the beloved Arkham video games. It's almost like Zack Snyder actually wanted to make a Batman film or something....
Wonder Womans presence is wholly unessecary, but for what it's worth, she's pretty badass, looks the part, and Gal Gadot does a good job of bringing her to life.
I also enjoyed the Knightmare scene hinting at Darkseid further down the line.
Unfortunately, the good parts are wrapped up in shambles. The MCU has been so finely crafted over the years, and it really confuses me why WB didn't take a similar route with the DC universe - a universe that has arguably better characters.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Hummingbird Project (2018) in Movies
Jun 24, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
The trailer for this offered a glimpse at something that looked intriguing but the final result wasn't quite as impactful as you might have imagined.
Vincent has the drive and cunning to launch a project that could make them millions, Anton is the brains to make it a success. In investment you have to be a step ahead of the competition, so the competition is where you'll get the best deal on the next big thing. When they both quit with immediate effect their boss is suspicious does everything to find out what they're up to. She eventually gets a break and is soon hot on their heels to come up with something bigger and better. The stakes are high and the game is dirty, but someone has to win.
The Hummingbird Project certainly didn't lack acting talent. While I've not seen much from Jesse Eisenberg apart from Lex Luthor in the DCEU I was impressed with what he gives in this, there are a lot of powerful moments as we get towards the end of the film and he treats them well. Alexander Skarsgård plays Anton, the awkward genius cousin who spends most of his time with his eyes glued to a computer screen. His role is heavy on physical acting rather than dialogue and it's very effective against the pushy characters around him.
The duo are pitted against their ex-boss, Eva Torres, beautifully brought to life as a ruthless villain by Salma Hayek. Hayek has the bitchy boss thing down and had she been talking at me with heavily threatening undertones I think I'd have just started crying.
I found the story easy to get along with, the script wasn't overly complicated which was nice considering it could have been with all the technical things going on. As the story overall is about them fulfilling their project it means that at several points we get reminders about what's going on, and that probably helps it because every so often they get out some plans and go "this is what we're doing and this is the problem" so you don't have to really remember much as we progress.
At points it seems like it's a little rushed, which is intriguing because it feels like it's longer than billed. I assumed that some scenes are included because they're a nod to the real-life story... but it isn't a real-life story... and that in itself should be the most confusing thing about this film. I genuinely went in thinking it was "history", but it's not history, so why did they bother making it? It's just not thrilling enough to hold up as a new story. If I'm honest, finding out it's fictional after thinking it was real has knocked off some star rating.
What you should do
There are much more thrilling tales out there for this sort of story, despite the good acting I would suggest seeing something else. Seeing something else would also preserve the beautiful image of Alexander Skarsgård from being tarnished.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A multi-million dollar idea would be quite nice.
Vincent has the drive and cunning to launch a project that could make them millions, Anton is the brains to make it a success. In investment you have to be a step ahead of the competition, so the competition is where you'll get the best deal on the next big thing. When they both quit with immediate effect their boss is suspicious does everything to find out what they're up to. She eventually gets a break and is soon hot on their heels to come up with something bigger and better. The stakes are high and the game is dirty, but someone has to win.
The Hummingbird Project certainly didn't lack acting talent. While I've not seen much from Jesse Eisenberg apart from Lex Luthor in the DCEU I was impressed with what he gives in this, there are a lot of powerful moments as we get towards the end of the film and he treats them well. Alexander Skarsgård plays Anton, the awkward genius cousin who spends most of his time with his eyes glued to a computer screen. His role is heavy on physical acting rather than dialogue and it's very effective against the pushy characters around him.
The duo are pitted against their ex-boss, Eva Torres, beautifully brought to life as a ruthless villain by Salma Hayek. Hayek has the bitchy boss thing down and had she been talking at me with heavily threatening undertones I think I'd have just started crying.
I found the story easy to get along with, the script wasn't overly complicated which was nice considering it could have been with all the technical things going on. As the story overall is about them fulfilling their project it means that at several points we get reminders about what's going on, and that probably helps it because every so often they get out some plans and go "this is what we're doing and this is the problem" so you don't have to really remember much as we progress.
At points it seems like it's a little rushed, which is intriguing because it feels like it's longer than billed. I assumed that some scenes are included because they're a nod to the real-life story... but it isn't a real-life story... and that in itself should be the most confusing thing about this film. I genuinely went in thinking it was "history", but it's not history, so why did they bother making it? It's just not thrilling enough to hold up as a new story. If I'm honest, finding out it's fictional after thinking it was real has knocked off some star rating.
What you should do
There are much more thrilling tales out there for this sort of story, despite the good acting I would suggest seeing something else. Seeing something else would also preserve the beautiful image of Alexander Skarsgård from being tarnished.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A multi-million dollar idea would be quite nice.