Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) in Movies
Aug 1, 2018
Quite possibly, the best action film ever made
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT just might be the best action movie I have ever seen.
Yes...it is that good.
The 6th entry in the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE franchise, this film stars, as usual, Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, part of the IMF, a secret government entity that takes on the impossible missions that the CIA (and other agencies) won't touch. He is joined, yet again, in this installment of the franchise by his "usual" team, Simon Pegg (Benji), Ving Rhames (Luther), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilse) and Alec Baldwin (IMF Director Hunley). It was fun to have "the band" back together again. They looked like they had a good time filming this and I had a good time watching it.
Jumping right in on the fun is Angela Bassett (BLACK PANTHER) as the head of the CIA, but doing more than just being a thorn in the side of Alec Baldwin. As well as Vanessa Kirby (THE CROWN) as the mysterious "White Widow" and, especially, Henry Cavill, who shows that he can do more than be DC's Superman.
And, finally, the franchise wisely brings back Sean Harris as "big bad" Solomon Lane (think Bond's arch-nemesis Blofeld). He proves to be, yet again, an able adversary for the IMF team.
The plot, of course, is somewhat convoluted, with twists, turns and double-crosses (by both the good and bad guys) throughout this film. If I have a quibble for this film, it is that they got a little "cute" with the plot twists - there was (perhaps) one or two too many "gotchas" - but that is just a quibble, for the plot gets us from point "A" to point "B" nicely.
And when I say "Point A" and "Point B", I mean action set piece "A" to action set piece "B" (and "C" and "D" and "E" and "F"...) - and boy are these action set pieces EXTRAORDINARY!
Director Christopher McQuarrie (he also Directed the previous film in this franchise, ROUGE NATION) is the first person to helm two of these films - and I think it is a smart choice for he established in Rogue Nation an ability to create smart, tense action, chase and fight sequences that are easy to follow and fun to watch.
Credit for most of this fun has to go to 55 year old (at the time of filming) Tom Cruise - looking every bit as fit and capable as a 35 year old Tom Cruise. He dives into the action sequences (literally) with gusto and proves more than capable of delivering the goods. Once again, he does a death-defying stunt that left me amazed.
But, what I really left the theater with was an appreciation for McQuarrie, Cruise and company for delivering an end sequence that earned the build up it was given. EVERY member of the company had something to do and the action in this endpiece was a step up of anything that had come before it - either in the Mission Impossible series, or in any other action flick.
If you are a fan of good, solid action films, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT is one to not miss.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes...it is that good.
The 6th entry in the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE franchise, this film stars, as usual, Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, part of the IMF, a secret government entity that takes on the impossible missions that the CIA (and other agencies) won't touch. He is joined, yet again, in this installment of the franchise by his "usual" team, Simon Pegg (Benji), Ving Rhames (Luther), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilse) and Alec Baldwin (IMF Director Hunley). It was fun to have "the band" back together again. They looked like they had a good time filming this and I had a good time watching it.
Jumping right in on the fun is Angela Bassett (BLACK PANTHER) as the head of the CIA, but doing more than just being a thorn in the side of Alec Baldwin. As well as Vanessa Kirby (THE CROWN) as the mysterious "White Widow" and, especially, Henry Cavill, who shows that he can do more than be DC's Superman.
And, finally, the franchise wisely brings back Sean Harris as "big bad" Solomon Lane (think Bond's arch-nemesis Blofeld). He proves to be, yet again, an able adversary for the IMF team.
The plot, of course, is somewhat convoluted, with twists, turns and double-crosses (by both the good and bad guys) throughout this film. If I have a quibble for this film, it is that they got a little "cute" with the plot twists - there was (perhaps) one or two too many "gotchas" - but that is just a quibble, for the plot gets us from point "A" to point "B" nicely.
And when I say "Point A" and "Point B", I mean action set piece "A" to action set piece "B" (and "C" and "D" and "E" and "F"...) - and boy are these action set pieces EXTRAORDINARY!
Director Christopher McQuarrie (he also Directed the previous film in this franchise, ROUGE NATION) is the first person to helm two of these films - and I think it is a smart choice for he established in Rogue Nation an ability to create smart, tense action, chase and fight sequences that are easy to follow and fun to watch.
Credit for most of this fun has to go to 55 year old (at the time of filming) Tom Cruise - looking every bit as fit and capable as a 35 year old Tom Cruise. He dives into the action sequences (literally) with gusto and proves more than capable of delivering the goods. Once again, he does a death-defying stunt that left me amazed.
But, what I really left the theater with was an appreciation for McQuarrie, Cruise and company for delivering an end sequence that earned the build up it was given. EVERY member of the company had something to do and the action in this endpiece was a step up of anything that had come before it - either in the Mission Impossible series, or in any other action flick.
If you are a fan of good, solid action films, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT is one to not miss.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Incredibles 2 (2018) in Movies
Dec 11, 2018
On Par With the Best
If The Incredibles isn’t one of the top five superhero films of all time, it’s definitely top ten. For awhile, I had it billed as the greatest. It has everything you need which created a tough act to follow. But follow it they did fourteen years later with The Incredibles 2. The sequel continues the story of the superhero family and their dealings with being abnormal in a normal world.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Jack-Jack. Just…Jack-Jack. I could go into sophisticated detail about the depth of each of these characters and their internal struggles, but all you really need to know is Jack-Jack.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The animation in this movie is, for lack of a better word, incredible. Pixar seems to age like a fine wine, constantly improving upon themselves. Facial features are crisp, colors are vivid leaving the screen bursting with life. It operates just like a big budget superhero film and, in some ways, even better. Animation has a leg up because it allows you to always capture the desired moment at the perfect time. Watching the family work in tandem and seeing all their powers come together on screen is reminiscent of the first Avengers film.
Conflict: 10
No good battles arise without a good villain and Incredibles 2 doesn’t disappoint here. The movie is action-packed beset with high stakes. There are a handful of slow points where the film hiccups, but the fight sequences more than make up for it. Any scene with Dash in it and you never know what’s going to happen! He’s growing in his powers but still has yet to realize his own strength which makes him fun to watch.
Genre: 8
Doesn’t quite rank in the upper echelon of top superhero movies of 2018 (Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War), but it’s not too far behind. It makes you feel, it makes you laugh, it makes you wow. Three things that make it a top choice for the year.
Memorability: 10
Jack-Jack Vs. The Raccoon is a scene I could watch a million times. Never gets old. The attention to detail in that scene and the way it unfolds is flawless. I also liked the fact that this movie seemed even darker than the first appealing more to adults at times than children. The first one toed the line, but the sequel jumped right over.
Pace: 8
As I mentioned earlier, there were some points in the movie where things got slow and you were waiting for it to pick back up. It didn’t happen often but definitely enough to be noticeable. Nothing that derailed the movie too much however as the action and hilarity more than made up for the slow points.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 10
Solid ending that ties the film up perfectly. It leaves you wanting more but, at the same time, if the series concluded here, I’d be good with it. No spoilers, but I’ll just say you’ll be satisfied.
Overall: 94
Incredibles 2 gets off to a fast start and doesn’t let you go. There is a scene with Edna and Jack-Jack that just makes me happy as hell and sums up my feeling for the whole movie experience. See it and love it.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Jack-Jack. Just…Jack-Jack. I could go into sophisticated detail about the depth of each of these characters and their internal struggles, but all you really need to know is Jack-Jack.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The animation in this movie is, for lack of a better word, incredible. Pixar seems to age like a fine wine, constantly improving upon themselves. Facial features are crisp, colors are vivid leaving the screen bursting with life. It operates just like a big budget superhero film and, in some ways, even better. Animation has a leg up because it allows you to always capture the desired moment at the perfect time. Watching the family work in tandem and seeing all their powers come together on screen is reminiscent of the first Avengers film.
Conflict: 10
No good battles arise without a good villain and Incredibles 2 doesn’t disappoint here. The movie is action-packed beset with high stakes. There are a handful of slow points where the film hiccups, but the fight sequences more than make up for it. Any scene with Dash in it and you never know what’s going to happen! He’s growing in his powers but still has yet to realize his own strength which makes him fun to watch.
Genre: 8
Doesn’t quite rank in the upper echelon of top superhero movies of 2018 (Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War), but it’s not too far behind. It makes you feel, it makes you laugh, it makes you wow. Three things that make it a top choice for the year.
Memorability: 10
Jack-Jack Vs. The Raccoon is a scene I could watch a million times. Never gets old. The attention to detail in that scene and the way it unfolds is flawless. I also liked the fact that this movie seemed even darker than the first appealing more to adults at times than children. The first one toed the line, but the sequel jumped right over.
Pace: 8
As I mentioned earlier, there were some points in the movie where things got slow and you were waiting for it to pick back up. It didn’t happen often but definitely enough to be noticeable. Nothing that derailed the movie too much however as the action and hilarity more than made up for the slow points.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 10
Solid ending that ties the film up perfectly. It leaves you wanting more but, at the same time, if the series concluded here, I’d be good with it. No spoilers, but I’ll just say you’ll be satisfied.
Overall: 94
Incredibles 2 gets off to a fast start and doesn’t let you go. There is a scene with Edna and Jack-Jack that just makes me happy as hell and sums up my feeling for the whole movie experience. See it and love it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
When his small paper is bought out but a large media conglomerate the free-spirited journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogen) quits rather write for a company he believes has a low moral compass. His best friend Lance (O’Shea Jackson Jr.) takes him out on the town to drown his sorrows. They decide to go to a charity function to get free drinks and watch Boyz II Men. As chance would have it Fred’s babysitter from high school, Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), is also there. Charlotte happens to be one of the most powerful women in the world. She is currently the Secretary of State and has her eyes set on the on the White House. But she recognizes Fred and they connect for a few moments. This chance meeting seems fortuitous for both. Fred needs a job and Charlotte is in need of a writer to help punch up her speeches. Fred also gets the chance to travel the world with his high school crush. Even though Fred isn’t your normal member of a government official’s entourage, dresses like a child, has a scraggly beard and looks high even when not, he can write. So he gets the chance to write entire speeches. As his role increases he needs to get to know this version of Charlotte a little better, rather than the girl he know in high school. They begin to spend more and more time together getting to know each other. Then a near death experience in Manilla leads to a wild night between the odd couple. But rather than a onetime thing the two begin sneaking away together. But as Charlotte heads toward a Presidential Campaign it seem inevitable that this secret relationship needs to end or go public.
This Jonathan Levine (The Night Before, Snatched) directed romantic comedy is predictable with flares of originality. The cast is great. Rogen and Theron have good chemistry and do well. The supporting cast, O’Shea (Straight Outta Compton) as well as June Diane Raphael (Blockers, The Disaster Artist), Ravi Patel (T.V. series Wrecked, Grandfathered), Andy Serkis (Black Panther, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy) and others, all have fun moments. Bob Odenkirk (T.V.’s Better Call Saul) is very funny in his role as President Chambers. The comedy is fun, but raunchy at times. There were definitely laugh out loud moments. But some of the jokes were predictable and other good jokes were spoiled by the trailers, so avoid if possible. The story was also pretty predictable with the outcome never really in doubt but the ride was fun and had both really good moments and some that fell flat. It blended what could be believable politics with some things you know would not be, or you really hope couldn’t be, done by someone in a powerful government position.
I thought the film was good but it did run a little long, 125 minutes. I think it would be a good date movie but definitely leave the kids at home due to prevalent drug use and raunchy moments. I went in with low expectations and that could also help. But if you need a laugh or non-super hero movie to see this is worth the ticket price.
This Jonathan Levine (The Night Before, Snatched) directed romantic comedy is predictable with flares of originality. The cast is great. Rogen and Theron have good chemistry and do well. The supporting cast, O’Shea (Straight Outta Compton) as well as June Diane Raphael (Blockers, The Disaster Artist), Ravi Patel (T.V. series Wrecked, Grandfathered), Andy Serkis (Black Panther, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy) and others, all have fun moments. Bob Odenkirk (T.V.’s Better Call Saul) is very funny in his role as President Chambers. The comedy is fun, but raunchy at times. There were definitely laugh out loud moments. But some of the jokes were predictable and other good jokes were spoiled by the trailers, so avoid if possible. The story was also pretty predictable with the outcome never really in doubt but the ride was fun and had both really good moments and some that fell flat. It blended what could be believable politics with some things you know would not be, or you really hope couldn’t be, done by someone in a powerful government position.
I thought the film was good but it did run a little long, 125 minutes. I think it would be a good date movie but definitely leave the kids at home due to prevalent drug use and raunchy moments. I went in with low expectations and that could also help. But if you need a laugh or non-super hero movie to see this is worth the ticket price.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In that sleep of death, what dreams may come.
“Ghost Stories” is based on the spooky London West-End stage play by Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman who both write and direct the film version. I didn’t know this until the end credits, but began to wonder in the final act where the action suddenly becomes very “stagey” in nature. The screenplay was always bound to be both bizarre and intriguing, since Dyson has been a past contributor to TV’s “League of Gentlemen” and other equally surreal programmes and Nyman has been a major collaborator with the stage-illusionist Derren Brown.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Bad Wigs aside it's really rather good
You could be forgiven for being rather sceptical walking into the cinema to see Aquaman, and it’s easy to see why. An uninspiring set of trailers preceded by the DCEU’s shall we say reluctance to resonate with audiences.
Of course, Wonder Woman was a sterling effort by Patty Jenkins, only hampered by a poor final act and the feeling that the female superhero couldn’t quite shake off the trappings of Zac Snyder’s overarching vision for the DC Extended Universe.
Justice League was a steaming pile of mediocrity and Batman vs Superman was fun if entirely forgettable. Aquaman arrives on the scene with the hopes of Warner Bros. entire franchise on its shoulders. But is it any good?
After the events of Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf, Aquaman (Jason Momoa) finds himself caught between a surface world that ravages the sea and the underwater Atlanteans who are ready to revolt. Much like the murky depths of the many oceans the film takes us to, Aquaman is at times, a clouded and muddled blockbuster that lacks the subtle nuances of the MCU, but do you know what, it’s actually really rather good.
As we should have been expecting, Aquaman plays the sensible card when it comes to plot and features numerous references to how we as human beings are destroying our oceans, and this is more than welcome. With the ongoing environmental crisis, the more we plug it in mainstream films, the better.
Jason Momoa takes to the role of Arthur Curry like a duck to water and gets to prove his acting prowess in some of the film’s more poignant moments. Nicole Kidman marks her superhero movie debut as his mother, Queen Atlanna and she looks like she’s having a royally good time. Elsewhere, Amber Heard battles against a truly ghastly wig as Momoa’s love-interest and sidekick – she’s fabulous, wig aside.
The supporting cast is also very strong. We get to see superhero veteran Willem Dafoe having a great time as wise Vulko and Patrick Wilson as Aquaman’s scaly brother, Orm. It’s a cracking cast that bolsters a film that is well-written and enjoyable throughout.
Director James Wan, mastermind of the Saw franchise and director of Furious 7brings his trademark filming style to the superhero blockbuster. There’s some stunning imagery throughout and it’s up there with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as one of the best-looking films of the year. There’s something delightful to look at lurking in every frame and it’s leagues ahead of anything the DCEU has thrown at us.
The underwater world of Atlantis is brimming with life, albeit of the CGI variety. The neon colour-palate works incredibly well and it feels at times like you’re watching a Star Wars cloud city, but in the depths of the ocean. It’s nicely detailed and very well put together.
For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal
The special effects are on the whole, a bit of a mixed bag. The underwater worlds look fab and the sea creatures too have been improved after the critical mauling they received in the trailers. Nevertheless, there are some moments of shaky CGI, normally involving surface dwellers or Atlantean individuals, rather than scenery or creatures. That’s a shame as it distracts from a gorgeous looking film.
When it comes to villainy, both the DCEU and MCU have struggled to create compelling bad guys and unfortunately the same is true here. Yes, Patrick Wilson’s scheming brother is fun to watch, but he feels like a poor man’s Loki and that’s exactly what he is.
Then there’s Black Manta, portrayed by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II from The Greatest Showman. Despite being part of one of the film’s best sequences (a fantastically filmed rooftop chase in Italy), he doesn’t get to do a lot and his motives are very Killmonger-esque.
And therein lies the fundamental flaw with Aquaman. For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal. From Star Wars to Harry Potter and Thor to Black Panther, elements are borrowed here and there until they make up a film that at 143 minutes is a good 20 minutes too long.
But, it doesn’t take itself too seriously (a problem the DCEU has suffered previously) and Jason Momoa somehow manages to make that Aquaman suit work very well indeed. As far as the DCEU is concerned, this is by far the best film the franchise has put out so far – there’s life in the old dog yet. Aquaman is cheesy, campy fun, and I have to say, I really rather liked it. Just ignore the bad wigs.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/13/aquaman-review-bad-wigs-aside-its-really-rather-good/
Of course, Wonder Woman was a sterling effort by Patty Jenkins, only hampered by a poor final act and the feeling that the female superhero couldn’t quite shake off the trappings of Zac Snyder’s overarching vision for the DC Extended Universe.
Justice League was a steaming pile of mediocrity and Batman vs Superman was fun if entirely forgettable. Aquaman arrives on the scene with the hopes of Warner Bros. entire franchise on its shoulders. But is it any good?
After the events of Justice League and the defeat of Steppenwolf, Aquaman (Jason Momoa) finds himself caught between a surface world that ravages the sea and the underwater Atlanteans who are ready to revolt. Much like the murky depths of the many oceans the film takes us to, Aquaman is at times, a clouded and muddled blockbuster that lacks the subtle nuances of the MCU, but do you know what, it’s actually really rather good.
As we should have been expecting, Aquaman plays the sensible card when it comes to plot and features numerous references to how we as human beings are destroying our oceans, and this is more than welcome. With the ongoing environmental crisis, the more we plug it in mainstream films, the better.
Jason Momoa takes to the role of Arthur Curry like a duck to water and gets to prove his acting prowess in some of the film’s more poignant moments. Nicole Kidman marks her superhero movie debut as his mother, Queen Atlanna and she looks like she’s having a royally good time. Elsewhere, Amber Heard battles against a truly ghastly wig as Momoa’s love-interest and sidekick – she’s fabulous, wig aside.
The supporting cast is also very strong. We get to see superhero veteran Willem Dafoe having a great time as wise Vulko and Patrick Wilson as Aquaman’s scaly brother, Orm. It’s a cracking cast that bolsters a film that is well-written and enjoyable throughout.
Director James Wan, mastermind of the Saw franchise and director of Furious 7brings his trademark filming style to the superhero blockbuster. There’s some stunning imagery throughout and it’s up there with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom as one of the best-looking films of the year. There’s something delightful to look at lurking in every frame and it’s leagues ahead of anything the DCEU has thrown at us.
The underwater world of Atlantis is brimming with life, albeit of the CGI variety. The neon colour-palate works incredibly well and it feels at times like you’re watching a Star Wars cloud city, but in the depths of the ocean. It’s nicely detailed and very well put together.
For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal
The special effects are on the whole, a bit of a mixed bag. The underwater worlds look fab and the sea creatures too have been improved after the critical mauling they received in the trailers. Nevertheless, there are some moments of shaky CGI, normally involving surface dwellers or Atlantean individuals, rather than scenery or creatures. That’s a shame as it distracts from a gorgeous looking film.
When it comes to villainy, both the DCEU and MCU have struggled to create compelling bad guys and unfortunately the same is true here. Yes, Patrick Wilson’s scheming brother is fun to watch, but he feels like a poor man’s Loki and that’s exactly what he is.
Then there’s Black Manta, portrayed by Yahya Abdul-Mateen II from The Greatest Showman. Despite being part of one of the film’s best sequences (a fantastically filmed rooftop chase in Italy), he doesn’t get to do a lot and his motives are very Killmonger-esque.
And therein lies the fundamental flaw with Aquaman. For all its flashy special effects and excellent cinematography, it feels wholly unoriginal. From Star Wars to Harry Potter and Thor to Black Panther, elements are borrowed here and there until they make up a film that at 143 minutes is a good 20 minutes too long.
But, it doesn’t take itself too seriously (a problem the DCEU has suffered previously) and Jason Momoa somehow manages to make that Aquaman suit work very well indeed. As far as the DCEU is concerned, this is by far the best film the franchise has put out so far – there’s life in the old dog yet. Aquaman is cheesy, campy fun, and I have to say, I really rather liked it. Just ignore the bad wigs.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/13/aquaman-review-bad-wigs-aside-its-really-rather-good/
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
Apr 28, 2018 (Updated Apr 30, 2018)
Great Action (as always) (3 more)
Incredible visuals
Brilliant cast
A f*ck fest of emotions
Not as impactful (2 more)
Another film that seems to happen too fast
A f*ck fest of emotions
10 years in the making
Contains spoilers, click to show
As stated this review contains spoilers so leave now lest ye want to ruin the film!
So this films has been everything marvel has been building towards for the past decade and that in itself is truly incredible and whilst I am not as big a Marvel fan as I am DC, I can honestly say I have loved every step of the way. The films only got better with each wave of the universe and there have been some true masterpieces, Superior to the DC cinematic universe for it's continuity and it's structure, I am not afraid to admit that or foolish enough to deny that.
However at the time of writing this I have literally just come out of the screening of Avengers: Infinity War and I have to say I was impressed but also slightly disappointed. Here's why...
I was impressed with the performances, and everything that has connected the Marvel cinematic universe up to this point and the cast portray that history incredibly well. You can really tell that these characters have had all this history and even the newer cast like Black Panther, fit well into that history and the overall atmosphere of the universe.
Brolin was incredible as Thanos and the writers did something unexpected with his character that really makes the audience think about his intentions.
However, the overall impact of the film was a little lost on me and possibly me alone, for the simple reason that it all happens so fast. There's a lot of action, a lot of laughs and a lot of serious impact moments, but without spoiling names, the loss of characters in this film didn't impact me as much as I'd hoped.
But here's why that might just be me, and it really comes down to 3 words:
Comic Book Movie
No matter how hard I try, I can't escape that when I watch these films. They are comic book movies and we already know a lot of these characters have more movies to go. So I know that no matter what will happen, it will all work out one way or another in the end you'll lose some characters but will they really be gone gone, or will we see them in another film, or at least hear about them in another film.
It's not because I'm a DC fanboy or anything cos honestly I know I'd feel this way about any comic book movie. It's just not something I can seem to grasp when it comes to my feelings towards comic book movies. The whole "they made comic characters feel real and live in our reality" I get to a certain extent but that doesn't mean I'll walk out of a movie in tears over the death of even my favourite comic book character if it were to happen. Some films have that impact on me, I'm not a robot, but comic book films just don't seem to work for me when it comes to that true emotions of loss. But as I said that's just me. I was hoping infinity war would change that cos I knew this was a biggy, but sadly it didn't quite happen. It came close with certain scenes. But not quite.
So overall I give it 9/10 because it was a brilliant film. Without a doubt ONE OF the best comic movies, not the best, but certainly one of.
So this films has been everything marvel has been building towards for the past decade and that in itself is truly incredible and whilst I am not as big a Marvel fan as I am DC, I can honestly say I have loved every step of the way. The films only got better with each wave of the universe and there have been some true masterpieces, Superior to the DC cinematic universe for it's continuity and it's structure, I am not afraid to admit that or foolish enough to deny that.
However at the time of writing this I have literally just come out of the screening of Avengers: Infinity War and I have to say I was impressed but also slightly disappointed. Here's why...
I was impressed with the performances, and everything that has connected the Marvel cinematic universe up to this point and the cast portray that history incredibly well. You can really tell that these characters have had all this history and even the newer cast like Black Panther, fit well into that history and the overall atmosphere of the universe.
Brolin was incredible as Thanos and the writers did something unexpected with his character that really makes the audience think about his intentions.
However, the overall impact of the film was a little lost on me and possibly me alone, for the simple reason that it all happens so fast. There's a lot of action, a lot of laughs and a lot of serious impact moments, but without spoiling names, the loss of characters in this film didn't impact me as much as I'd hoped.
But here's why that might just be me, and it really comes down to 3 words:
Comic Book Movie
No matter how hard I try, I can't escape that when I watch these films. They are comic book movies and we already know a lot of these characters have more movies to go. So I know that no matter what will happen, it will all work out one way or another in the end you'll lose some characters but will they really be gone gone, or will we see them in another film, or at least hear about them in another film.
It's not because I'm a DC fanboy or anything cos honestly I know I'd feel this way about any comic book movie. It's just not something I can seem to grasp when it comes to my feelings towards comic book movies. The whole "they made comic characters feel real and live in our reality" I get to a certain extent but that doesn't mean I'll walk out of a movie in tears over the death of even my favourite comic book character if it were to happen. Some films have that impact on me, I'm not a robot, but comic book films just don't seem to work for me when it comes to that true emotions of loss. But as I said that's just me. I was hoping infinity war would change that cos I knew this was a biggy, but sadly it didn't quite happen. It came close with certain scenes. But not quite.
So overall I give it 9/10 because it was a brilliant film. Without a doubt ONE OF the best comic movies, not the best, but certainly one of.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Phantom Thread (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“There’s an air of quiet death in this house”.
The alleged acting swan-song of Daniel Day-Lewis (“Lincoln“) sees him deliver a brilliantly intense portrayal of a maestro in his craft with all the quirks and egotistical faults that come with that position.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950’s fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, “Maleficent“).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, “The Colony”). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and – aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words – limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manville’s award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles I’ve seen this year so far.
It’s a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for “Darkest Hour”, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because “he always gets one”. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips – not an actress I know – also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasn’t such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood. It’s really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with “The Shape of Water“).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Inherent Vice”, “There Will Be Blood”). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the “fashion industry” (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ‘duty’ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say “There is strong language (‘f**k’), as well as milder terms including ‘bloody’ and ‘hell’. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a woman’s nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.” For a 12A, the board say “The use of strong language (for example, ‘f***’) must be infrequent”. I didn’t count the f-words… but as I said I don’t think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that “frequent”? And – SHOCK, HORROR… visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within “Black Panther”, you have to question this disparity.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950’s fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, “Maleficent“).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, “The Colony”). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and – aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words – limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manville’s award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles I’ve seen this year so far.
It’s a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for “Darkest Hour”, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because “he always gets one”. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips – not an actress I know – also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasn’t such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood. It’s really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with “The Shape of Water“).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Inherent Vice”, “There Will Be Blood”). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the “fashion industry” (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ‘duty’ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say “There is strong language (‘f**k’), as well as milder terms including ‘bloody’ and ‘hell’. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a woman’s nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.” For a 12A, the board say “The use of strong language (for example, ‘f***’) must be infrequent”. I didn’t count the f-words… but as I said I don’t think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that “frequent”? And – SHOCK, HORROR… visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within “Black Panther”, you have to question this disparity.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alita: Battle Angel (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A visual spectacle
It’s always a worry when a production company feels the need to force feed you the fact that a big-name is in a relatively minor role. In the case of Alita: Battle Angel, 20th Century Fox have been hammering home the fact that James Cameron is involved in a Producer capacity.
You have to feel a little sorry for director Robert Rodriguez as his name has been almost usurped by Cameron’s in the marketing push for this live-action adaptation of the classic manga. Of course, Cameron is too busy making the four Avatar sequels no-one actually cares about anymore and instead, entrusted his vision for Alita: Battle Angel to Rodriguez. He’s certainly an intriguing choice of director, but does the finished product work?
Set several centuries in the future, the abandoned Alita (Rosa Salazar) is found in the scrapyard of Iron City by Ido (Christoph Waltz), a compassionate cyber-doctor who takes the unconscious cyborg Alita to his clinic. When Alita awakens, she has no memory of who she is, nor does she have any recognition of the world she finds herself in. As Alita learns to navigate her new life and the treacherous streets of Iron City, Ido tries to shield her from her mysterious past.
After spending nearly $200million on Alita, Fox clearly think they’ve got another massive hit on their hands and to an extent, they deserve one. Battle Angel is a majestic film, filled with visual presence not dissimilar to the spectacle of watching Avatar for the first time in 2009. The bustling world of Iron City feels as if it’s living and breathing right before our eyes and that’s a testament to both Cameron and Rodriguez as well as the visual effects people down at Weta Digital.
This thriving metropolis is populated by practical and CGI effects of varying qualities, but as a movie world, it works much better than Wakanda did in Black Panther and is leagues ahead of the empty, soulless Asgard from Thor.
It is reminiscent of Sakaar in Thor: Ragnarok however, with its narrow streets and market stalls. The difference here is that Iron City is a much darker, eerier place than Sakarr ever was, save for Jeff Goldblum’s Grandmaster towering above everything.
The casting is also very good and features some household names that were clearly intrigued by the project. Waltz is excellent as the compassionate Ido and Jennifer Connelly works well as his ex-wife, though she is underused throughout.
Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time.
Ed Skrein turns up every now and then as Zapan, a cyborg bounty hunter and provides some light comic relief in a film that has more than its fair share of darker moments. TV actor Keann Johnson makes his big-budget film debut here and he is excellent as Hugo, Alita’s love interest.
Unfortunately, the initial optimism fades somewhat when you realise that Alita: Battle Angel struggles under the weight of its own script. Plot points in the first 45 minutes feel ridiculously rushed and then the film hurtles towards its climax without stopping for breath.
You get the feeling there was much more that had to be cut to trim the runtime down to a more family friendly 2 hours. The dialogue too isn’t a strong point. Overly expositional and riddled in cliché, Alita is not a film you watch because of its sparkling and witty one-liners.
Niggles aside though and Alita: Battle Angel is much better than I thought it was going to be. The plot, while unoriginal, is sweet and easy enough to swallow, making it a great family film. True, it has its darker moments, but the strong visuals and vibrant environment will make it enjoyable for older children and adults alike.
Overall, Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time. It’s a flawed film that struggles to cope with its many ideas that continuously pull it in hundreds of different directions, but it’s worth a watch just for the visual spectacle and emotionally arresting story. Whether or not it recoups that colossal $200million budget remains to be seen.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/02/09/alita-battle-angel-review-a-visual-spectacle/
You have to feel a little sorry for director Robert Rodriguez as his name has been almost usurped by Cameron’s in the marketing push for this live-action adaptation of the classic manga. Of course, Cameron is too busy making the four Avatar sequels no-one actually cares about anymore and instead, entrusted his vision for Alita: Battle Angel to Rodriguez. He’s certainly an intriguing choice of director, but does the finished product work?
Set several centuries in the future, the abandoned Alita (Rosa Salazar) is found in the scrapyard of Iron City by Ido (Christoph Waltz), a compassionate cyber-doctor who takes the unconscious cyborg Alita to his clinic. When Alita awakens, she has no memory of who she is, nor does she have any recognition of the world she finds herself in. As Alita learns to navigate her new life and the treacherous streets of Iron City, Ido tries to shield her from her mysterious past.
After spending nearly $200million on Alita, Fox clearly think they’ve got another massive hit on their hands and to an extent, they deserve one. Battle Angel is a majestic film, filled with visual presence not dissimilar to the spectacle of watching Avatar for the first time in 2009. The bustling world of Iron City feels as if it’s living and breathing right before our eyes and that’s a testament to both Cameron and Rodriguez as well as the visual effects people down at Weta Digital.
This thriving metropolis is populated by practical and CGI effects of varying qualities, but as a movie world, it works much better than Wakanda did in Black Panther and is leagues ahead of the empty, soulless Asgard from Thor.
It is reminiscent of Sakaar in Thor: Ragnarok however, with its narrow streets and market stalls. The difference here is that Iron City is a much darker, eerier place than Sakarr ever was, save for Jeff Goldblum’s Grandmaster towering above everything.
The casting is also very good and features some household names that were clearly intrigued by the project. Waltz is excellent as the compassionate Ido and Jennifer Connelly works well as his ex-wife, though she is underused throughout.
Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time.
Ed Skrein turns up every now and then as Zapan, a cyborg bounty hunter and provides some light comic relief in a film that has more than its fair share of darker moments. TV actor Keann Johnson makes his big-budget film debut here and he is excellent as Hugo, Alita’s love interest.
Unfortunately, the initial optimism fades somewhat when you realise that Alita: Battle Angel struggles under the weight of its own script. Plot points in the first 45 minutes feel ridiculously rushed and then the film hurtles towards its climax without stopping for breath.
You get the feeling there was much more that had to be cut to trim the runtime down to a more family friendly 2 hours. The dialogue too isn’t a strong point. Overly expositional and riddled in cliché, Alita is not a film you watch because of its sparkling and witty one-liners.
Niggles aside though and Alita: Battle Angel is much better than I thought it was going to be. The plot, while unoriginal, is sweet and easy enough to swallow, making it a great family film. True, it has its darker moments, but the strong visuals and vibrant environment will make it enjoyable for older children and adults alike.
Overall, Alita: Battle Angel is a pleasant surprise from a director who has needed a hit for quite some time. It’s a flawed film that struggles to cope with its many ideas that continuously pull it in hundreds of different directions, but it’s worth a watch just for the visual spectacle and emotionally arresting story. Whether or not it recoups that colossal $200million budget remains to be seen.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/02/09/alita-battle-angel-review-a-visual-spectacle/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film that leaves you in two minds.
After all the terrible reviews of this movie (“The Times” reviewer described it as “excreble” which is harsh indeed) I was steeling myself to reach for my 1* rating. I was happy to find that it wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting it to be. Indeed parts of it were positively good fun.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.