Search
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Electric Dragon 80.000 V (2000) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Dragon Eye Morrison (Tadanobu Asano, Hogun in the Thor films)) didn’t have a normal childhood. As a young boy, he climbed an electrical tower despite his friends warning him he’d be electrocuted. After the inevitable occurred, Dragon Eye seems to go through electroshock therapy whenever he gets into trouble. These shocking developments usually happen in fights and become more frequent when he gets older. As a result, he’s now charged with 80,000 volts of electricity at all times. He has developed his own version of the therapy that involves bolting himself to a table. The only way he can deal with being charged with this much electricity is by playing his electric guitar. Aside from his unusual self-treatment, Dragon Eye is a lizard expert who has an impressive reptile collection. When one of his lizards goes missing and Thunderbolt Buddha (Mastoshi Nagase, Paterson, The Hidden Blade) steps into the picture, that’s when things get even more bizarre.
Electric Dragon 80,000 V is a beyond weird cinematic experience. It clocks in at a little under 55-minutes, so calling it a full-length movie may be a bit of an overstatement. Written and directed by Gakuryū Ishii (credited as Sogo Ishi, he has also directed Labyrinth of Dreams and Angel Dust), the Japanese film is visually similar to Tetsuo, the Iron Man but is more like an extended music video that collided with the visuals of a live-action anime or manga. Ishii used the leftover funds from Gojoe: Spirit War Chronicle to make Electric Dragon 80,000 V while recruiting Asano and Nagase who were the two main leads in Gojoe.
Having nothing else in common with Gojoe, Electric Dragon 80,000 V is absolutely its own beast. The film’s biggest strength is its cinematography. With Norimichi Kasamatsu (Korean filmmaker Lee Song-il’s 2013 remake of Unforgiven) as the film’s cinematographer, being entirely in black and white allows the visuals of the film to bleed off the screen. Some of the most unique shots are when Dragon Eye is playing guitar as the drastic lighting and creative perspective are just what you’d expect from someone taking all of their frustrations out on a guitar; incredibly angry and in your face. There’s a scene in the second half of the film where Thunderbolt Buddha has gotten Dragon Eye’s full attention and Dragon Eye is moving through rooms without moving himself. He appears to be floating from room to room and it allows you to realize how he’s feeling at that particular point in the film as if it’s all a bad dream.
The music may be what makes or breaks the film for the viewer as it tends to walk a thin line between catchy rock music to nothing but loud, distorted noise with screaming. The film is noisy in every sense of the word. Whenever Dragon Eye starts playing his guitar, it often just sounds like noise. It fits the tone of the film perfectly since it complements the concept of channeling 80,000 volts of electricity through a guitar. That would probably sound more like amplified noise than polished music. If you’re not a fan of loud, heavy music then it may affect your judgment of the film.
Electric Dragon 80,000 V is an unusual gray scale experiment, but it’s certainly innovative and unlike anything else you’ve ever seen. It’s not a remake and it’s not an adaptation. It’s an original film that stands on its own, but its radical plunge into such severe weirdness could be a turnoff for some viewers as its manga inspired influences flow excessively through every frame surrounding every sequence with boisterous and heavy guitar riffs; think like a shorter and black and white version of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World that somehow fused with the FLCL anime. This was discovered while digging through Tadanobu Asano’s filmography and if you’re fan of his stuff, then Electric Dragon 80,000 V comes highly recommended.
Electric Dragon 80,000 V isn’t available to stream anywhere, was never released on Blu-ray (this would be amazing in high definition), and the DVD is out of print. A high quality version of the DVD cover had to be pulled from eBay of all places since Google can’t seem to find one otherwise that isn’t tiny in size. The DVD is available on Amazon from third party sellers for $39.99 plus $3.99 shipping in new condition and $29.98 with free shipping in used condition. A pre-owned DVD is running $69.99 to $79.99 on eBay with free shipping. It does look like someone uploaded a 90-minute version of the film on YouTube with English subs and that looks to be the best way to see the film at the moment.
Electric Dragon 80,000 V is a beyond weird cinematic experience. It clocks in at a little under 55-minutes, so calling it a full-length movie may be a bit of an overstatement. Written and directed by Gakuryū Ishii (credited as Sogo Ishi, he has also directed Labyrinth of Dreams and Angel Dust), the Japanese film is visually similar to Tetsuo, the Iron Man but is more like an extended music video that collided with the visuals of a live-action anime or manga. Ishii used the leftover funds from Gojoe: Spirit War Chronicle to make Electric Dragon 80,000 V while recruiting Asano and Nagase who were the two main leads in Gojoe.
Having nothing else in common with Gojoe, Electric Dragon 80,000 V is absolutely its own beast. The film’s biggest strength is its cinematography. With Norimichi Kasamatsu (Korean filmmaker Lee Song-il’s 2013 remake of Unforgiven) as the film’s cinematographer, being entirely in black and white allows the visuals of the film to bleed off the screen. Some of the most unique shots are when Dragon Eye is playing guitar as the drastic lighting and creative perspective are just what you’d expect from someone taking all of their frustrations out on a guitar; incredibly angry and in your face. There’s a scene in the second half of the film where Thunderbolt Buddha has gotten Dragon Eye’s full attention and Dragon Eye is moving through rooms without moving himself. He appears to be floating from room to room and it allows you to realize how he’s feeling at that particular point in the film as if it’s all a bad dream.
The music may be what makes or breaks the film for the viewer as it tends to walk a thin line between catchy rock music to nothing but loud, distorted noise with screaming. The film is noisy in every sense of the word. Whenever Dragon Eye starts playing his guitar, it often just sounds like noise. It fits the tone of the film perfectly since it complements the concept of channeling 80,000 volts of electricity through a guitar. That would probably sound more like amplified noise than polished music. If you’re not a fan of loud, heavy music then it may affect your judgment of the film.
Electric Dragon 80,000 V is an unusual gray scale experiment, but it’s certainly innovative and unlike anything else you’ve ever seen. It’s not a remake and it’s not an adaptation. It’s an original film that stands on its own, but its radical plunge into such severe weirdness could be a turnoff for some viewers as its manga inspired influences flow excessively through every frame surrounding every sequence with boisterous and heavy guitar riffs; think like a shorter and black and white version of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World that somehow fused with the FLCL anime. This was discovered while digging through Tadanobu Asano’s filmography and if you’re fan of his stuff, then Electric Dragon 80,000 V comes highly recommended.
Electric Dragon 80,000 V isn’t available to stream anywhere, was never released on Blu-ray (this would be amazing in high definition), and the DVD is out of print. A high quality version of the DVD cover had to be pulled from eBay of all places since Google can’t seem to find one otherwise that isn’t tiny in size. The DVD is available on Amazon from third party sellers for $39.99 plus $3.99 shipping in new condition and $29.98 with free shipping in used condition. A pre-owned DVD is running $69.99 to $79.99 on eBay with free shipping. It does look like someone uploaded a 90-minute version of the film on YouTube with English subs and that looks to be the best way to see the film at the moment.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Messengers 2: The Scarecrow (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
John Rollins is a guy who's just trying to catch a break. He lives on a farm with his wife and two children, but his crops just won't grow. His cornfield is infested with crows and his water pump won't work. Stress and fatigue don't begin to describe what John is currently going through. He's a man of faith that's just trying to figure out how he can support his family with no income. He's pretty much lost all hope until he stumbles upon the scarecrow in his barn. After being convinced by his neighbor, he puts the scarecrow up in his cornfield. Besides, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. John wakes up to a field full of dead crows and his water pump begins working again. Everything looks to finally be turning in John's favor, but there's two sides to every coin. People that get in the way of John's crops or his family begin to turn up dead. What makes matters worse is that John finds possessions of the victims in his cornfield and he is the only person all the evidence points to. Once he realizes that the scarecrow is the root of his newfound problems and that he could wind up losing his family, John knows he has to get rid of it but he may already be too late...
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
In my movie watching experience, I've learned that it's usually important to watch an original film before its sequel. With this day and age though where sequels are actually prequels and we get prequel trilogies sixteen years AFTER the original trilogy, there aren't really any guidelines to follow when it comes to watching films anymore. So being somebody who had no interest in seeing The Messengers, the sequel didn't really interest me until they announced Norman Reedus in the title role. Since Reedus had been impressive in films such as The Boondock Saints, Blade II, and even his brief (but rather incredible) cameo in Antibodies, I felt it was my obligation to at least give this film a chance. The results are pretty much what you'd expect for a direct to DVD horror film.
The acting isn't terrible, but doesn't really do much to stand out. Norman Reedus, Heather Stephens, and Richard Riehle are pretty much the cream of the crop as far as acting goes. Reedus does a good job of acting like a farmer who's going through troubled times and just wants to support his family. He was easy to relate to since just about everyone is either going through tough times or has so in the past. Stephens played the concerned wife and was able to portray the widest range of emotions in the film. Riehle always seemed to show up to encourage John Rollins to do mischievous things, so the seeds are planted from the get-go that something isn't quite right with him. The boy who played John's son, Michael, is the only actor in the film that could really be considered atrocious as his lines are delivered so nonchalantly.
The way the rest of the film plays out just feels like it borrowed heavily from Jeepers Creepers 2 and the Children of the Corn films. The scarecrow drags its scythe on the ground as it's stalking its victims, which was a nice touch but was really the only enjoyable part of the scarecrow. Once it reveals itself at the end of the film and starts walking around, it makes pterodactyl sounds and trust me, that's just as incredible as it sounds. The film actually starts going downhill in the second half, which is when the cheesy effects come in and unanswered questions begin. The latter half of the film is filled with a lot of moments that will leave you scratching your head wondering why you even decided to watch this film to begin with.
Messengers 2: The Scarecrow isn't exactly the greatest film to watch, but it isn't the worst either. While it does have its fair share of blood and isn't half bad at times, it doesn't really offer anything most horror fans haven't seen before. Messengers 2 is really only recommended for die hard fans of Norman Reedus since it's basically just a rehash of Jeepers Creepers 2 with a lower budget. It's the type of film that's a decent watch at 3 o' clock in the morning when you stumble across it channel surfing, but isn't worth deliberately tracking down on DVD.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 16, 2020 (Updated Jan 16, 2020)
Cutting satire (1 more)
Great ensemble cast
Don't be stupid, be a smarty
Taika Waititi's much discussed movie is an odd beast. Set in a small German town towards the end of the war, Jojo (Roman Griffith Davis), is a young boy indoctrinated with Nazi fervour as a member of the Hitler youth. Together with his rotund and bespectacled friend Yorki (Archie Yates), they are not likely to spread fear into the approaching Allied forces: they are a pair that would be likely to get picked last for 'sides' in a school football match.
Perhaps to bolster his flagging self-esteem, Jojo has an imaginary friend - - Adolf Hitler (played by director Taika Waititi). Hitler provides him with sage - and sometimes foolish - advice. His mother (Scarlett Johansson), as well as obviously being hot and thus obtaining lustful looks from returning troops, is also kindly. She makes up for the absence of Jojo's father, due to the war, with the help of some play-acting and a sooty beard.
But, when alone in the house, Jojo hears noises from upstairs, his world - and his whole belief system - begins to unravel.
Comedies have tip-toed around the sensibilities of World War II in the past, most famously with Mel Brook's "The Producers". I don't think anyone's previously been brave enough to introduce the holocaust into the comedy mix. And - to a degree... we are NOT talking excessive bad taste here - the movie goes there. There's an underlying sharpness to some of the dialogue that - despite not being Jewish myself - nevertheless put my sensibilities on edge: the pit in hell 'set aside for Jews', for example, is filled with not only piranhas... but also bacon.
As a satire lampooning Antisemitism, much of the comedy is slapstick and the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed are deliberately ludicrous. And it's one of my issues I guess with the film. There are some good lines (Rebel Wilson's fanatical Nazi screaming "Let's burn some books" at the students) but some of the slapstick farce just didn't work for me. Sam Rockwell is great as a one-eyed ex-war hero looking for new challenges and exuberant costumes! But a lame gag from him about German Shepherds made me go "What? Really?". And this lessens the impact for me of the satire.
The second half of the film for me was far better, taking a much darker and edgier tone. There's a sudden turn in the film - brilliantly executed - that is truly shocking. This scene is somewhat reminiscent of one in that other great Holocaust comedy, "Schindler's List". It's understated, yet devastating. (Now, before seeing the film I'd heard from other reviews that the film "turned darker" and - based on the trailer - I'd kind of set in my mind what that would be. But I was wrong! So take this comment not as a spoiler, but as an anti-spoiler!).
As the war unravels for Germany, a late re-appearance by the imaginary Hitler is also memorable.
As the young star, Welsh kid Roman Griffith Davis - with no previous acting experience - turns in a star performance. Though to say that the performance ranks alongside the top 5 male performances of 2019 is, I think, overstepping the mark. Scarlett Johansson got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role. And I think this is deserved.
Elsewhere in the cast, few seemed to have recognized Thomasin McKenzie's role playing Elsa. The 19 year-old New Zealander really delivered for me. A strong female character, she's vulnerable yet with a will of iron under the surface. She made me really care about the outcome of the story.
Less positive for me is Rebel Wilson. Here she is marginally less annoying than I normally find her in that she's playing a deliberately annoying and unhinged character. But the role seemed largely redundant to me: it didn't add anything to the overall story (unlike Rockwell's - surprising - character arc).
If there was an Oscar for originality - and that WOULD be a good new award category - then this film would be a contender. It's certainly novel: amusing in places; disturbing in others. If you like your comedies on the edge and bit whacky - like "Death of Stalin" - then you will probably enjoy this. I'm not sure it's the best film of the year - and there are probably others I would swap into that Oscars nomination list - but it's still a well-made movie and a recommended watch.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/16/one-manns-movies-film-review-jojo-rabbit-2020/ )
Perhaps to bolster his flagging self-esteem, Jojo has an imaginary friend - - Adolf Hitler (played by director Taika Waititi). Hitler provides him with sage - and sometimes foolish - advice. His mother (Scarlett Johansson), as well as obviously being hot and thus obtaining lustful looks from returning troops, is also kindly. She makes up for the absence of Jojo's father, due to the war, with the help of some play-acting and a sooty beard.
But, when alone in the house, Jojo hears noises from upstairs, his world - and his whole belief system - begins to unravel.
Comedies have tip-toed around the sensibilities of World War II in the past, most famously with Mel Brook's "The Producers". I don't think anyone's previously been brave enough to introduce the holocaust into the comedy mix. And - to a degree... we are NOT talking excessive bad taste here - the movie goes there. There's an underlying sharpness to some of the dialogue that - despite not being Jewish myself - nevertheless put my sensibilities on edge: the pit in hell 'set aside for Jews', for example, is filled with not only piranhas... but also bacon.
As a satire lampooning Antisemitism, much of the comedy is slapstick and the anti-Jewish sentiments expressed are deliberately ludicrous. And it's one of my issues I guess with the film. There are some good lines (Rebel Wilson's fanatical Nazi screaming "Let's burn some books" at the students) but some of the slapstick farce just didn't work for me. Sam Rockwell is great as a one-eyed ex-war hero looking for new challenges and exuberant costumes! But a lame gag from him about German Shepherds made me go "What? Really?". And this lessens the impact for me of the satire.
The second half of the film for me was far better, taking a much darker and edgier tone. There's a sudden turn in the film - brilliantly executed - that is truly shocking. This scene is somewhat reminiscent of one in that other great Holocaust comedy, "Schindler's List". It's understated, yet devastating. (Now, before seeing the film I'd heard from other reviews that the film "turned darker" and - based on the trailer - I'd kind of set in my mind what that would be. But I was wrong! So take this comment not as a spoiler, but as an anti-spoiler!).
As the war unravels for Germany, a late re-appearance by the imaginary Hitler is also memorable.
As the young star, Welsh kid Roman Griffith Davis - with no previous acting experience - turns in a star performance. Though to say that the performance ranks alongside the top 5 male performances of 2019 is, I think, overstepping the mark. Scarlett Johansson got a Best Supporting Actress nomination for her role. And I think this is deserved.
Elsewhere in the cast, few seemed to have recognized Thomasin McKenzie's role playing Elsa. The 19 year-old New Zealander really delivered for me. A strong female character, she's vulnerable yet with a will of iron under the surface. She made me really care about the outcome of the story.
Less positive for me is Rebel Wilson. Here she is marginally less annoying than I normally find her in that she's playing a deliberately annoying and unhinged character. But the role seemed largely redundant to me: it didn't add anything to the overall story (unlike Rockwell's - surprising - character arc).
If there was an Oscar for originality - and that WOULD be a good new award category - then this film would be a contender. It's certainly novel: amusing in places; disturbing in others. If you like your comedies on the edge and bit whacky - like "Death of Stalin" - then you will probably enjoy this. I'm not sure it's the best film of the year - and there are probably others I would swap into that Oscars nomination list - but it's still a well-made movie and a recommended watch.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/16/one-manns-movies-film-review-jojo-rabbit-2020/ )
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Alien Slave Masters: Part One
5.7
Rate It
Book
The Captain's Pet When a distant planet’s ownership is in dispute, conquering aliens turn...
Science Fiction Erotica MM Dark
Nicola Jane (6 KP) created a post
May 7, 2019 (Updated May 7, 2019)
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Feb 17, 2019 (Updated Feb 17, 2019)
I want it all. I want it all. I want it all. And I want it now
Contains spoilers, click to show
“I want it all. I want it all. I want it all. And I want it now.”
“I Want It All,” Queen, The Miracle, 1989
I am hating having to write this review though I feel compelled to do so. I bought this movie knowing I would like it. I didn’t have much money left in my checking account, but I thought, yes, this would be worth what little I had left to spend. I gifted it to my kiddo for Valentine’s Day knowing she would surely love it, too.
I didn’t love it. I didn’t even really like it.
I haven’t made a mistake this bad since the much-renowned Lost in Translation. Why the ire? Because Bohemian Rhapsody taught me some things, but not enough. Not what I wanted to know. I wanted to learn more than what a rudimentary Google search would have taught me about the band. Instead, I obtained only basic information about the band’s success. I think to really do the band justice you would need a series. Maybe that is my problem. The film had too much general information crammed into it, and I needed MORE, PEOPLE.
I should have liked this film because it revolved around Queen’s music. The best thing about this film is the soundtrack. I think contemplating some of Queen’s lyrics throughout would have really enhanced the film, though. They talked about the poetry but didn’t examine it. And I was disappointed.
Malek’s Mercury just didn’t do it for me though I admire his dedication to the craft. I do think he did an excellent job, but there was something missing that I can’t put my finger on. It felt very much like pretending. And I can’t even adequately explain why. I did love the costuming though. Especially the hair. The transformation of Mercury from boy to man was impressive. It made me want to grow a mustache.
The supporting characters were stereotypical. The supporting cast members might have been cardboard cutouts for all of the attachment I felt to them. The film also didn’t undertake the concept of what it meant to be LGBT in that era. Therefore, it didn’t fully explore the ramifications of the risks that Mercury was taking both professionally and personally. Conflicts just didn’t resonate with the high drama I felt they should have especially considering the in-your-face elements of Mercury’s personality. The passion just wasn’t there. And a real miracle would have been adequately examining the collaboration between the musicians.
I also felt the film was generally stilted by the writing, which seemed comprised of the most overused clichés in the English language.
Bohemian Rhapsody didn’t delve into the AIDS crisis deep enough to evoke much of an emotional response in me. I appreciate that Freddie Mercury didn’t want his life to be a “cautionary tale.” I get that. But the tragedy of his death seemed really downplayed to me for some reason. I wasn’t expecting the emotional response you would get from a film like Philadelphia. But something close would have been nice. Maybe I’ve seen too many films that focus on tragedy and expected to be weeping by the end of the film. Or the beginning of the film, or at any point during the film. But I was left feeling hollow.
The crowd scene from Live Aid and the Live Aid performance rightfully stole what remained of this show. The looks on the faces of the crowd. The expanse of the crowd. The scene reflected what it must have felt like to be a performer or a fan in such a large venue. Malek was awesome in this scene and deserves his due. It might be what earns him the Oscar.
I hate to say it, but I liked Mark Wahlberg and Rock Star (2001) better than I liked this movie. I just felt they could have done a better job with it. It didn’t live up to the hype.
And now I’ve touched upon the real issue. I could never get enough of this band, or of Mercury, and DAMNIT. The experience they provided fans around the world was just gone too soon.
And I just don’t feel the movie did the band or Mercury’s life justice.
I spent my Saturday listening to music in my car, wondering what a septuagenarian Mercury would have thought of today’s saturated music market. I imagine he would have been like my late father, fascinated by both the popular and the underground.
Ok, NOW I’m crying.
But touch my tears, with your lips
Touch my world, with your fingertips.
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today…
Queen, “Who Wants to Live Forever,” It’s Kind of Magic, 1986
“I Want It All,” Queen, The Miracle, 1989
I am hating having to write this review though I feel compelled to do so. I bought this movie knowing I would like it. I didn’t have much money left in my checking account, but I thought, yes, this would be worth what little I had left to spend. I gifted it to my kiddo for Valentine’s Day knowing she would surely love it, too.
I didn’t love it. I didn’t even really like it.
I haven’t made a mistake this bad since the much-renowned Lost in Translation. Why the ire? Because Bohemian Rhapsody taught me some things, but not enough. Not what I wanted to know. I wanted to learn more than what a rudimentary Google search would have taught me about the band. Instead, I obtained only basic information about the band’s success. I think to really do the band justice you would need a series. Maybe that is my problem. The film had too much general information crammed into it, and I needed MORE, PEOPLE.
I should have liked this film because it revolved around Queen’s music. The best thing about this film is the soundtrack. I think contemplating some of Queen’s lyrics throughout would have really enhanced the film, though. They talked about the poetry but didn’t examine it. And I was disappointed.
Malek’s Mercury just didn’t do it for me though I admire his dedication to the craft. I do think he did an excellent job, but there was something missing that I can’t put my finger on. It felt very much like pretending. And I can’t even adequately explain why. I did love the costuming though. Especially the hair. The transformation of Mercury from boy to man was impressive. It made me want to grow a mustache.
The supporting characters were stereotypical. The supporting cast members might have been cardboard cutouts for all of the attachment I felt to them. The film also didn’t undertake the concept of what it meant to be LGBT in that era. Therefore, it didn’t fully explore the ramifications of the risks that Mercury was taking both professionally and personally. Conflicts just didn’t resonate with the high drama I felt they should have especially considering the in-your-face elements of Mercury’s personality. The passion just wasn’t there. And a real miracle would have been adequately examining the collaboration between the musicians.
I also felt the film was generally stilted by the writing, which seemed comprised of the most overused clichés in the English language.
Bohemian Rhapsody didn’t delve into the AIDS crisis deep enough to evoke much of an emotional response in me. I appreciate that Freddie Mercury didn’t want his life to be a “cautionary tale.” I get that. But the tragedy of his death seemed really downplayed to me for some reason. I wasn’t expecting the emotional response you would get from a film like Philadelphia. But something close would have been nice. Maybe I’ve seen too many films that focus on tragedy and expected to be weeping by the end of the film. Or the beginning of the film, or at any point during the film. But I was left feeling hollow.
The crowd scene from Live Aid and the Live Aid performance rightfully stole what remained of this show. The looks on the faces of the crowd. The expanse of the crowd. The scene reflected what it must have felt like to be a performer or a fan in such a large venue. Malek was awesome in this scene and deserves his due. It might be what earns him the Oscar.
I hate to say it, but I liked Mark Wahlberg and Rock Star (2001) better than I liked this movie. I just felt they could have done a better job with it. It didn’t live up to the hype.
And now I’ve touched upon the real issue. I could never get enough of this band, or of Mercury, and DAMNIT. The experience they provided fans around the world was just gone too soon.
And I just don’t feel the movie did the band or Mercury’s life justice.
I spent my Saturday listening to music in my car, wondering what a septuagenarian Mercury would have thought of today’s saturated music market. I imagine he would have been like my late father, fascinated by both the popular and the underground.
Ok, NOW I’m crying.
But touch my tears, with your lips
Touch my world, with your fingertips.
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today…
Queen, “Who Wants to Live Forever,” It’s Kind of Magic, 1986
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A soft reboot that actually works
1987; feels like a long time ago doesn’t it? In fact, most of you reading this I imagine weren’t even born way back in the late 80s. I mean, I was only a twinkle in my parents’ eyes at that time. But I digress.
What’s so special about 1987? Well, it was the year that Arnold Schwarzenegger kicked serious alien butt in the first Predator movie. Of course, the franchise’s now infamous fall from grace is the stuff of legend, and along with Alien, the original remains a true high point in the sci-fi horror genre.
Rebooted for 2018 with Iron Man 3 director Shane Black at the helm, The Predator aims to revitalise the public’s interest in this flagging horror franchise. Looking at Shane Black’s unusual resume, he seems a strange choice to take charge here, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But just how good, or bad, is The Predator?
From the outer reaches of space to the small-town streets of suburbia, the hunt comes home. The universe’s most lethal hunters are stronger, smarter and deadlier than ever before, having genetically upgraded themselves with DNA from other species. When a boy accidentally triggers their return to Earth, only a ragtag crew of ex-soldiers and an evolutionary biologist can prevent the end of the human race.
The aforementioned ragtag crew of ex-soldiers includes Boyd Holbrook, a vastly underused presence in last year’s Logan, that thankfully receives much higher billing here. Trevante Rhodes, Keegan-Michael Key, Thomas Jane and Augusto Aguilera make up the rest of the team and whilst their backstories are limited to one scene on a bus, they feel fleshed out enough to carry the film.
Less successful is Olivia Munn’s Casey Bracket. Biologist and when required by the screenwriters, experienced military personnel, she’s probably the most badass biologist you’ll see on screen this decade, when the script requires it of course.
Finally, we have the ridiculously talented Jacob Tremblay as Holbrooks son, Rory. His subplot which surrounds his daily struggles with autism is poorly realised but should be praised for bringing awareness to the condition in a mainstream Hollywood film.
Thankfully, Shane Black injects his trademark dark humour throughout and surprisingly, it works better than I had anticipated. The jokes are well-placed across the running time and each one manages to at least raise a titter.
Now let’s get to the part everyone reading this is interested in; the Predator’s return. Portrayed by stuntman Brian A. Prince, this Predator is virtually identical to the 1987 original in every way. And that’s a good thing, because when the 11ft hybrid shows up, it spoils the party a little. Rendered in CGI, rather than practical effects, its movements are a little too fluid and lack that sense of realism you get with a real man in a suit. The addition of the Predator Dogs however is an inspired choice and they work well despite some sloppy CG at times.
The Predator is a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards
Nevertheless, the film is shot very well and the copious amounts of gore are both restrained and animalistic. It earns its 15 rating most definitely as the Predator works its way through a massive number of victims, but it never crosses the line in which you’d have people saying ‘enough is enough’.
The special effects are on the whole, very good indeed. Considering a relatively modest $88million budget, there are only a few instances of poor CGI and the practical effects used throughout are a nice touch. It’s a shame then that there are some case of poor editing in the film however. A couple of character decisions will leave you scratching your head as you wonder how on earth our band of heroes managed to figure out certain problems.
But this is very much fan service to the original and for that, you’ll either love or hate it. There are many references to its predecessors, some subtle, some smack you in the face obvious. The classic Arnie line “get to the chopper” is there, but that’s definitely in the latter camp, and it’s one reference that doesn’t quite hit the spot.
Overall, The Predator is definitely the best film since the original, although that really isn’t saying much. And that’s a little bit of a disservice to what Shane black and the cast has managed to achieve. It’s a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards. Is it a horror movie like the original was classed to be? Absolutely not. But it’s worth a watch for both Predator fans and those looking to scratch their sci-fi itch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/09/14/the-predator-review-a-soft-reboot-that-actually-works/
What’s so special about 1987? Well, it was the year that Arnold Schwarzenegger kicked serious alien butt in the first Predator movie. Of course, the franchise’s now infamous fall from grace is the stuff of legend, and along with Alien, the original remains a true high point in the sci-fi horror genre.
Rebooted for 2018 with Iron Man 3 director Shane Black at the helm, The Predator aims to revitalise the public’s interest in this flagging horror franchise. Looking at Shane Black’s unusual resume, he seems a strange choice to take charge here, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But just how good, or bad, is The Predator?
From the outer reaches of space to the small-town streets of suburbia, the hunt comes home. The universe’s most lethal hunters are stronger, smarter and deadlier than ever before, having genetically upgraded themselves with DNA from other species. When a boy accidentally triggers their return to Earth, only a ragtag crew of ex-soldiers and an evolutionary biologist can prevent the end of the human race.
The aforementioned ragtag crew of ex-soldiers includes Boyd Holbrook, a vastly underused presence in last year’s Logan, that thankfully receives much higher billing here. Trevante Rhodes, Keegan-Michael Key, Thomas Jane and Augusto Aguilera make up the rest of the team and whilst their backstories are limited to one scene on a bus, they feel fleshed out enough to carry the film.
Less successful is Olivia Munn’s Casey Bracket. Biologist and when required by the screenwriters, experienced military personnel, she’s probably the most badass biologist you’ll see on screen this decade, when the script requires it of course.
Finally, we have the ridiculously talented Jacob Tremblay as Holbrooks son, Rory. His subplot which surrounds his daily struggles with autism is poorly realised but should be praised for bringing awareness to the condition in a mainstream Hollywood film.
Thankfully, Shane Black injects his trademark dark humour throughout and surprisingly, it works better than I had anticipated. The jokes are well-placed across the running time and each one manages to at least raise a titter.
Now let’s get to the part everyone reading this is interested in; the Predator’s return. Portrayed by stuntman Brian A. Prince, this Predator is virtually identical to the 1987 original in every way. And that’s a good thing, because when the 11ft hybrid shows up, it spoils the party a little. Rendered in CGI, rather than practical effects, its movements are a little too fluid and lack that sense of realism you get with a real man in a suit. The addition of the Predator Dogs however is an inspired choice and they work well despite some sloppy CG at times.
The Predator is a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards
Nevertheless, the film is shot very well and the copious amounts of gore are both restrained and animalistic. It earns its 15 rating most definitely as the Predator works its way through a massive number of victims, but it never crosses the line in which you’d have people saying ‘enough is enough’.
The special effects are on the whole, very good indeed. Considering a relatively modest $88million budget, there are only a few instances of poor CGI and the practical effects used throughout are a nice touch. It’s a shame then that there are some case of poor editing in the film however. A couple of character decisions will leave you scratching your head as you wonder how on earth our band of heroes managed to figure out certain problems.
But this is very much fan service to the original and for that, you’ll either love or hate it. There are many references to its predecessors, some subtle, some smack you in the face obvious. The classic Arnie line “get to the chopper” is there, but that’s definitely in the latter camp, and it’s one reference that doesn’t quite hit the spot.
Overall, The Predator is definitely the best film since the original, although that really isn’t saying much. And that’s a little bit of a disservice to what Shane black and the cast has managed to achieve. It’s a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards. Is it a horror movie like the original was classed to be? Absolutely not. But it’s worth a watch for both Predator fans and those looking to scratch their sci-fi itch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/09/14/the-predator-review-a-soft-reboot-that-actually-works/
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Never Forgotten (Never Forgotten, #1) in Books
Aug 23, 2018
''All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is a part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another. - Anatole France''
How can one day go so very wrong? One minute Meara Quinn is making plans for how she will spend the Summer before her senior year and the next she's finding out that her mother's cancer has returned and they are moving away from the only home she's ever known.
Now she is in a new country, taking care of her mother, living with grandparents she never met, meeting new friends at school and a guy she really likes and having weird visions of a father who was absent her entire life. There is a secret of who Meara is, and everyone seems to know this except her.
Meara is determined to find out the secrets that will change her life forever.
Review:
The beginning of this book in unbelievably good! Amazing intro and perfect character development. I loved how you could feel with Meara all the time, and go through with her while she leans about her mum's sickness and the movement to another country. It is very realistically described, and we manage to see this all through the eyes of a troubled teenager. And the descriptions of the scenes? Ahhh, just see for yourselves:
''The room was a deep purple and accented with an eclectic blend of antiques and comfortable furnishings. It was the kind of room that made a person long to grab a book and cozy into the oversized couch for a several hours.''
Thought, sometimes, there would be things that didn't make sense to me:
''The guy who delivered the pizza forgot plates and napkins. So, we just opened the box and dug in.''
Which delivery place on Earth, for God's sake, delivers plates and napkins? Is this an American thing? If I order pizza, I expect to dig into it with all my fingers, get really messy, and then lick them in the end. Just saying…
There were many twists and turns, mostly little ones in this first book, but the middle of the book gets really slow paced. For a moment, I thought this might be an unpleasant read, but it turned out to just be a calm before the storm, where the biggest twist happens right before the end, and it leaves us wanting more - therefore, the second book. Nicely done, Kelly Risser, nicely done!
Meara is an amazing girl, and we follow her story. She finds out her mum's cancer is back again, and they have to move from USA to Canada. For a teenage girl, that is a huge change. I loved the way she coped with it, even though, at the beginning she made me quite agitated - her mum is dying, and her thought are - life is unfair, why do I have to move to another country, and change schools and lose my friends? It made me incredibly angry, but as much as I don't want to admit it, those are the exact thoughts a teen would have in such moments. We don’t really tend to think about how our parents feel until we get older and wiser, do we?
I liked Meara, apart her irritating personality at times. She is a typical teenage girl, and many girls, me included, can relate to her so well! She is a good person, and she cares about the people around her.
I loved Evan - he is just the sweetest person / boyfriend a girl can have. I honestly wish I had a boyfriend like him when I was 13-years-old. He made sandwiches, and they watched a movie in the car because it was raining, and he would come to Meara's house with flowers, and offer to help out with the chores? He is the cutest person ever.
''He was about six foot tall with wavy, black hair that curled over his ears. Tanned skin, lean muscles, and strong hands that ended in long, graceful fingers.''
But then, there is Kieran… I know he is the bad boy, but I might be able to ship him and Meara together - maybe? We'll see… It's an unpopular opinion, but I actually want to see them together. Even though Evan is just the sweetest thing, and it would be horrible if Meara broke his heart.
I really enjoyed this book - maybe I enjoyed it the most from all the other Young-Adult paranormal books I've read. It was a great first beginning to a series, and I can't wait to dig in the rest of the series.
As a finale - I had to also include this quote from the book:
''Humans are spiteful creatures. They destroy more than they create. That is why I do not associate with them.''
How can one day go so very wrong? One minute Meara Quinn is making plans for how she will spend the Summer before her senior year and the next she's finding out that her mother's cancer has returned and they are moving away from the only home she's ever known.
Now she is in a new country, taking care of her mother, living with grandparents she never met, meeting new friends at school and a guy she really likes and having weird visions of a father who was absent her entire life. There is a secret of who Meara is, and everyone seems to know this except her.
Meara is determined to find out the secrets that will change her life forever.
Review:
The beginning of this book in unbelievably good! Amazing intro and perfect character development. I loved how you could feel with Meara all the time, and go through with her while she leans about her mum's sickness and the movement to another country. It is very realistically described, and we manage to see this all through the eyes of a troubled teenager. And the descriptions of the scenes? Ahhh, just see for yourselves:
''The room was a deep purple and accented with an eclectic blend of antiques and comfortable furnishings. It was the kind of room that made a person long to grab a book and cozy into the oversized couch for a several hours.''
Thought, sometimes, there would be things that didn't make sense to me:
''The guy who delivered the pizza forgot plates and napkins. So, we just opened the box and dug in.''
Which delivery place on Earth, for God's sake, delivers plates and napkins? Is this an American thing? If I order pizza, I expect to dig into it with all my fingers, get really messy, and then lick them in the end. Just saying…
There were many twists and turns, mostly little ones in this first book, but the middle of the book gets really slow paced. For a moment, I thought this might be an unpleasant read, but it turned out to just be a calm before the storm, where the biggest twist happens right before the end, and it leaves us wanting more - therefore, the second book. Nicely done, Kelly Risser, nicely done!
Meara is an amazing girl, and we follow her story. She finds out her mum's cancer is back again, and they have to move from USA to Canada. For a teenage girl, that is a huge change. I loved the way she coped with it, even though, at the beginning she made me quite agitated - her mum is dying, and her thought are - life is unfair, why do I have to move to another country, and change schools and lose my friends? It made me incredibly angry, but as much as I don't want to admit it, those are the exact thoughts a teen would have in such moments. We don’t really tend to think about how our parents feel until we get older and wiser, do we?
I liked Meara, apart her irritating personality at times. She is a typical teenage girl, and many girls, me included, can relate to her so well! She is a good person, and she cares about the people around her.
I loved Evan - he is just the sweetest person / boyfriend a girl can have. I honestly wish I had a boyfriend like him when I was 13-years-old. He made sandwiches, and they watched a movie in the car because it was raining, and he would come to Meara's house with flowers, and offer to help out with the chores? He is the cutest person ever.
''He was about six foot tall with wavy, black hair that curled over his ears. Tanned skin, lean muscles, and strong hands that ended in long, graceful fingers.''
But then, there is Kieran… I know he is the bad boy, but I might be able to ship him and Meara together - maybe? We'll see… It's an unpopular opinion, but I actually want to see them together. Even though Evan is just the sweetest thing, and it would be horrible if Meara broke his heart.
I really enjoyed this book - maybe I enjoyed it the most from all the other Young-Adult paranormal books I've read. It was a great first beginning to a series, and I can't wait to dig in the rest of the series.
As a finale - I had to also include this quote from the book:
''Humans are spiteful creatures. They destroy more than they create. That is why I do not associate with them.''
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Gravity (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
We’ve long been spoiled by depictions of space in most science fiction, or at least in popular science fiction. A frontier, a futuristic ocean of sorts for maritime-type traversal. It’s hardly ever depicted as a particularly dangerous place. That’s exactly why Alfanso Cuaron’s Gravity is so incredibly refreshing and surprisingly so at that. All he really had to do was set out to depict a story in space that highlights how dangerous it really is. And boy does he succeed. Gravity is not only intriguing in its science, but also an incredibly gripping thriller.
The premise is focused and simple for the betterment of the film. Sandra Bullock plays Ryan Stone, a scientist who is on her first space walk installing new components onto the Hubble telescope. She is accompanied by George Clooney’s character, Kowalski, an experienced astronaut who’s calm in crisis helps guide the frightened Bullock through the following events. A massive accident leaves the characters stranded in space with no way home, periled by the hazards that go with being stuck in the abyss.
At its core, Gravity is a survival thriller movie. There is no villain other than the environment, no schemes or whacky plot twists. It’s reminiscent of a film like Cast Away, albeit quicker in pace because survival is more immediately at stake. The film takes so much into account, impressively, about the kinds of hazards one might face in a crisis that leaves them stuck in orbit. Oxygen, debris, structural damage, even how objects interact with one another or move in zero gravity. Most films in space neglect the ‘no sound in space’ rule, largely because of how awkward it would be to watch a Star Wars battle with no sound. But this film follows the rule, for the most part, and just that tiny detail alone adds so much to the anxiety of the situation. Watching speeding debris silently obliterate an entire space station while only hearing the internal suit audio of the protagonist might be the most frightening and memorable moments of any science fiction thriller I have seen in years.
Alfonso Cuaron is no stranger to striking imagery and near masterful shooting of important scenes. He has done so in his previous works, like Children of Men and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. He does so again through the action in Gravity. Although I will say a few visual metaphors in Gravity are a bit heavy handed in how they refer to the back story of the protagonist; yet nevertheless they end up having quite an impact despite arguable cheesiness.
The two leads do great in their roles; not hugely surprising considering Clooney and Bullock are established actors with great works under their belts. But at the same time both characters are light in their characterization, perhaps even ‘one-note’, particularly the case for Clooney. I do not necessarily think this is a bad thing, because it keeps the action of the film focused on the survival and the intensity of the situation. But, when those quieter scenes come by to pad the action, leaving the characters to mingle, I can’t help but feel like the drama is a little forced. There to give the audience someone to care about and desire to not die in space, and only for that purpose. Even if it’s forced, the personal struggle of Bullock’s character is admittedly compelling and you do want to see her make it out alive. Both the writing an acting for her character do an excellent job portraying her as someone overcoming an extremely difficult situation that she’s ill-equipped to deal with.
I’m not usually a fan of 3D, I think it’s often distracting and gimmicky. But this is one film that the 3D effect soars in. In the non-action moments it is nearly unnoticeable. And in those sequences where vessels are exploding spectacularly, space debris splintering in every direction, the 3D effect adds an extra layer of chaos and intensity around the characters’ fate. I seldom recommend going to see a film in 3D, but this is one I thoroughly recommend doing so.
Gravity is a pure focused thriller that tackles an environment so rich with possibility for great survival storytelling. Forget all the safe depictions of space like Star Wars and Star Trek, because this will make you as frightened of being stuck in space as Jaws did of being out in open water. It’s not perfect, certainly, as its drama ultimately draws too much attention to itself as a device of the plot, feeling a bit forced. Nevertheless, the superb acting on the parts of both leads ends up overcoming the potential shallowness of the characterization and makes you care about their survival – an absolute necessity in a film like this. The situations dealt with not only feel realistic, but are so excellently shot that the intensity is simply stunning.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/04/gravity/
The premise is focused and simple for the betterment of the film. Sandra Bullock plays Ryan Stone, a scientist who is on her first space walk installing new components onto the Hubble telescope. She is accompanied by George Clooney’s character, Kowalski, an experienced astronaut who’s calm in crisis helps guide the frightened Bullock through the following events. A massive accident leaves the characters stranded in space with no way home, periled by the hazards that go with being stuck in the abyss.
At its core, Gravity is a survival thriller movie. There is no villain other than the environment, no schemes or whacky plot twists. It’s reminiscent of a film like Cast Away, albeit quicker in pace because survival is more immediately at stake. The film takes so much into account, impressively, about the kinds of hazards one might face in a crisis that leaves them stuck in orbit. Oxygen, debris, structural damage, even how objects interact with one another or move in zero gravity. Most films in space neglect the ‘no sound in space’ rule, largely because of how awkward it would be to watch a Star Wars battle with no sound. But this film follows the rule, for the most part, and just that tiny detail alone adds so much to the anxiety of the situation. Watching speeding debris silently obliterate an entire space station while only hearing the internal suit audio of the protagonist might be the most frightening and memorable moments of any science fiction thriller I have seen in years.
Alfonso Cuaron is no stranger to striking imagery and near masterful shooting of important scenes. He has done so in his previous works, like Children of Men and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. He does so again through the action in Gravity. Although I will say a few visual metaphors in Gravity are a bit heavy handed in how they refer to the back story of the protagonist; yet nevertheless they end up having quite an impact despite arguable cheesiness.
The two leads do great in their roles; not hugely surprising considering Clooney and Bullock are established actors with great works under their belts. But at the same time both characters are light in their characterization, perhaps even ‘one-note’, particularly the case for Clooney. I do not necessarily think this is a bad thing, because it keeps the action of the film focused on the survival and the intensity of the situation. But, when those quieter scenes come by to pad the action, leaving the characters to mingle, I can’t help but feel like the drama is a little forced. There to give the audience someone to care about and desire to not die in space, and only for that purpose. Even if it’s forced, the personal struggle of Bullock’s character is admittedly compelling and you do want to see her make it out alive. Both the writing an acting for her character do an excellent job portraying her as someone overcoming an extremely difficult situation that she’s ill-equipped to deal with.
I’m not usually a fan of 3D, I think it’s often distracting and gimmicky. But this is one film that the 3D effect soars in. In the non-action moments it is nearly unnoticeable. And in those sequences where vessels are exploding spectacularly, space debris splintering in every direction, the 3D effect adds an extra layer of chaos and intensity around the characters’ fate. I seldom recommend going to see a film in 3D, but this is one I thoroughly recommend doing so.
Gravity is a pure focused thriller that tackles an environment so rich with possibility for great survival storytelling. Forget all the safe depictions of space like Star Wars and Star Trek, because this will make you as frightened of being stuck in space as Jaws did of being out in open water. It’s not perfect, certainly, as its drama ultimately draws too much attention to itself as a device of the plot, feeling a bit forced. Nevertheless, the superb acting on the parts of both leads ends up overcoming the potential shallowness of the characterization and makes you care about their survival – an absolute necessity in a film like this. The situations dealt with not only feel realistic, but are so excellently shot that the intensity is simply stunning.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/04/gravity/