Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Cinematography: Theory and Practice: Image Making for Cinematographers and Directors
Book
The world of cinematography has changed more in the last few years than it has since it has in 1929,...
Dana (24 KP) rated The Year's Work at the Zombie Research Center in Books
Mar 23, 2018
I had to read this book for my zombie film course at UCI and I can honestly say it was incredibly interesting. I loved seeing all these ideas about how deep the zombie narrative is because it made me think in ways I would not have otherwise.
There are essays on race, post feminism, the health care system, and so many more.
I loved how it related to both zombie films from the 1930s as well as the more prevalent films known about today. These essays took into consideration the history of zombies and the actual cultural significance of these monsters instead of ignoring it. Many of these essays made references to the Haitian culture surrounding zombies which was awesome.
I enjoyed seeing the different cultural and gender perspectives on all of these issues. Instead of only seeing the viewpoint of some middle aged white male, we get to see women and men of color all engaging in this scholarship and being able to keep it entertaining enough to keep the readers engaged.
If you like reading essays on popular culture connecting to both social and political issues of the time period, then definitely pick this book up, it is worth the read. Honestly, even if you don't like reading those types of books, pick it up because it could give you a different perspective on something you feel like you already know.
There are essays on race, post feminism, the health care system, and so many more.
I loved how it related to both zombie films from the 1930s as well as the more prevalent films known about today. These essays took into consideration the history of zombies and the actual cultural significance of these monsters instead of ignoring it. Many of these essays made references to the Haitian culture surrounding zombies which was awesome.
I enjoyed seeing the different cultural and gender perspectives on all of these issues. Instead of only seeing the viewpoint of some middle aged white male, we get to see women and men of color all engaging in this scholarship and being able to keep it entertaining enough to keep the readers engaged.
If you like reading essays on popular culture connecting to both social and political issues of the time period, then definitely pick this book up, it is worth the read. Honestly, even if you don't like reading those types of books, pick it up because it could give you a different perspective on something you feel like you already know.
Blockbusters: Why Big Hits - And Big Risks - Are the Future of the Entertainment Business
Book
What is behind the phenomenal success of entertainment businesses such as Warner Bros., Marvel...
2D Graphics Programming for Games
Book
The success of Angry Birds, Peggle, and Fruit Ninja has proven that fun and immersive game...
Otway93 (580 KP) rated Harry Potter Trading Card Game in Tabletop Games
Dec 3, 2020
Gameplay (3 more)
Variety of Characters
Variety of Card
Game Length
Great game, but costs could add up.
Firstly, this is a great game, for seasoned gamers or beginners; very quick and easy to play and understand.
The aim of the game is a simple one, to empty your opponents deck. Simple as that. This is done by choosing a character (each with a unique special skill), and playing creature, spell and item cards to attack their deck.
The range of spells are superb, with everything from forgotten spells from the books, to flipendo, best remembered from the 2001 PS1 Philosophers Stone game. The range of beasts could be better, but as this is only based on the first book, the range could be considered excellent, including creatures including Devil's Snare, Fluffy, Fang, Hounds, Boa Constrictors, Wolves, Trolls and anything you can think of when it comes to the first film/book.
The only issue nowadays is potential costs. As this is out-of-print and nearly 20 years old, cards are a bit of a nuisance to find and expensive when you do find them. Small lots of cards can be found on ebay for a reasonable price, but if you're after individual cards, costs could easily mount up with cards starting at 99p and going up to £5 or more for some of the rarer cards.
Overall though, a great game, and well worth getting a starter set and a few extras :)
The aim of the game is a simple one, to empty your opponents deck. Simple as that. This is done by choosing a character (each with a unique special skill), and playing creature, spell and item cards to attack their deck.
The range of spells are superb, with everything from forgotten spells from the books, to flipendo, best remembered from the 2001 PS1 Philosophers Stone game. The range of beasts could be better, but as this is only based on the first book, the range could be considered excellent, including creatures including Devil's Snare, Fluffy, Fang, Hounds, Boa Constrictors, Wolves, Trolls and anything you can think of when it comes to the first film/book.
The only issue nowadays is potential costs. As this is out-of-print and nearly 20 years old, cards are a bit of a nuisance to find and expensive when you do find them. Small lots of cards can be found on ebay for a reasonable price, but if you're after individual cards, costs could easily mount up with cards starting at 99p and going up to £5 or more for some of the rarer cards.
Overall though, a great game, and well worth getting a starter set and a few extras :)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Ghost Fields (Ruth Galloway, #7) in Books
Feb 8, 2018
Archaeologist Ruth Galloway is back again, this time called on by Detective Chief Inspector Nelson to investigate a skeleton found in a World War II plane. Once Ruth realizes the dead man sitting in the plane couldn't actually have been the pilot (oh and he's been shot, too), things unfold quickly from there. Ruth and Nelson become ensnared with the upper class Blackstock family, who somehow become enmeshed in all aspects of Nelson's case and investigation. Further, a TV company decides to make a film about the case. This means a return of actor Frank Barker, who was looking to start a relationship with Ruth in the previous novel.
As I've said before, I absolutely love the Ruth Galloway series. I completely identify with Ruth, and I love the way Griffiths writes her - she's a smart, funny, modern woman and mother. This book in the series (#7!) doesn't disappoint. The mystery plot is snappy and intriguing, as we meet various Blackstocks and uncover their diverse motives. In much of the book, the weather is its own sub-plot, and it's done well. We get more character development/advancement with Ruth, Nelson, Nelson's wife Michelle, and Frank, along with the funny tidbits I've come to expect from Ruth (and Kate, who is growing up!). The entire book is cozy and familiar (I love how Ruth identifies with her car, for instance - so me!), yet propelled by a completely enjoyable and thrilling mystery. Can't go wrong with this one. I'm so looking forward to #8.
As I've said before, I absolutely love the Ruth Galloway series. I completely identify with Ruth, and I love the way Griffiths writes her - she's a smart, funny, modern woman and mother. This book in the series (#7!) doesn't disappoint. The mystery plot is snappy and intriguing, as we meet various Blackstocks and uncover their diverse motives. In much of the book, the weather is its own sub-plot, and it's done well. We get more character development/advancement with Ruth, Nelson, Nelson's wife Michelle, and Frank, along with the funny tidbits I've come to expect from Ruth (and Kate, who is growing up!). The entire book is cozy and familiar (I love how Ruth identifies with her car, for instance - so me!), yet propelled by a completely enjoyable and thrilling mystery. Can't go wrong with this one. I'm so looking forward to #8.
Amanda (96 KP) rated Alex, Approximately in Books
Mar 14, 2019
“My name is Bailey Rydell, and I’m a habitual evader.”
This was one of those books that I’ve seen everywhere from Kindle store to the Target book section. I did grab it while it was on sale, so that’s a bonus for me. This book read almost like a teenager version of You’ve Got Mail. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing at all. I actually enjoyed this book.
Bailey “Mink” moves from her mother’s home and into her father’s home in California. Before that, she was chatting with a classic movie buff online with someone by the SN Alex. He happens to live in California and wants Bailey to accompany him to a film festival where classics are shown, including North by Northwest. Bailey doesn’t tell Alex that she up and moved to California, and for some reason, wants to try and find him on her own.
Why she would want to do that…I had no idea but I kept reading. Her father gets her a summer job and during the first day of training, she meets a guy she titles him her ‘arch nemesis’. Only villains from Disney have arch nemesis, I’m just saying.
Porter Roth is rude, inappropriate and gets on Bailey’s nerves – you can’t help but like the guy anyway; and clearly, neither could she.
So, I say that it almost read like You’ve Got Mail, because when Bailey starts to see Porter, she kind of stops messaging Alex – and so does he, but the summary gives it away that Alex IS Porter, so I don’t have to worry about spoiling it. Then again, the movie already lets you know he’s the one anyway.
Bailey is an evader and wants to avoid any kind of conflict, confrontation, etc. I can relate to that, so I can’t really fault her on being that way. I really found it disheartening that her mother didn’t bother to give her a call or even a simple text to see how she’s doing after she moved in with her father. That is addressed, but it’s still hard for me to grasp it. I know she feels guilty (sorry, won’t spoil as to why she does), but it’s still disheartening to make your daughter think that you don’t really care about her.
“That’s the thing about being an evader. You have to be flexible and know when to bail before it all gets weird. Better for everyone, really. I’m a giver.”
This is the first novel I’ve read by Jenn Bennett. There was an excerpt from her other novel in the ebook, but I didn’t read it. I don’t know why. I don’t like reading excerpts from other books after I’ve finished one. I always want to read it straight from the book itself. I’m not sure if that made any sense at all.
The book was a cute read. Don’t let Bailey get to you right away, she has her reasons and she’s a good and strong person. Porter is a goober, but you’ll love him just as much as Bailey does. I ADORE Grace. Wish she was a bigger part in the story, just because I like her that much. And now the book makes me want to check some of the older classic movies I have not seen yet.
This was one of those books that I’ve seen everywhere from Kindle store to the Target book section. I did grab it while it was on sale, so that’s a bonus for me. This book read almost like a teenager version of You’ve Got Mail. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing at all. I actually enjoyed this book.
Bailey “Mink” moves from her mother’s home and into her father’s home in California. Before that, she was chatting with a classic movie buff online with someone by the SN Alex. He happens to live in California and wants Bailey to accompany him to a film festival where classics are shown, including North by Northwest. Bailey doesn’t tell Alex that she up and moved to California, and for some reason, wants to try and find him on her own.
Why she would want to do that…I had no idea but I kept reading. Her father gets her a summer job and during the first day of training, she meets a guy she titles him her ‘arch nemesis’. Only villains from Disney have arch nemesis, I’m just saying.
Porter Roth is rude, inappropriate and gets on Bailey’s nerves – you can’t help but like the guy anyway; and clearly, neither could she.
So, I say that it almost read like You’ve Got Mail, because when Bailey starts to see Porter, she kind of stops messaging Alex – and so does he, but the summary gives it away that Alex IS Porter, so I don’t have to worry about spoiling it. Then again, the movie already lets you know he’s the one anyway.
Bailey is an evader and wants to avoid any kind of conflict, confrontation, etc. I can relate to that, so I can’t really fault her on being that way. I really found it disheartening that her mother didn’t bother to give her a call or even a simple text to see how she’s doing after she moved in with her father. That is addressed, but it’s still hard for me to grasp it. I know she feels guilty (sorry, won’t spoil as to why she does), but it’s still disheartening to make your daughter think that you don’t really care about her.
“That’s the thing about being an evader. You have to be flexible and know when to bail before it all gets weird. Better for everyone, really. I’m a giver.”
This is the first novel I’ve read by Jenn Bennett. There was an excerpt from her other novel in the ebook, but I didn’t read it. I don’t know why. I don’t like reading excerpts from other books after I’ve finished one. I always want to read it straight from the book itself. I’m not sure if that made any sense at all.
The book was a cute read. Don’t let Bailey get to you right away, she has her reasons and she’s a good and strong person. Porter is a goober, but you’ll love him just as much as Bailey does. I ADORE Grace. Wish she was a bigger part in the story, just because I like her that much. And now the book makes me want to check some of the older classic movies I have not seen yet.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
May 27, 2019
"They said the age of heroes would never come again."
As a huge fan of Zack Snyder's first two efforts inside the DCEU and Patty Jenkins wonderful Wonder Woman, my expectations for Justice League were pretty much through the roof. After the mediocre buzz that it got and all the stuff that happened behind the scenes, I was a little skeptical but still very excited, but after getting out of the theater, one word really just describes how I felt; disappointed.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
One of the most wonderful things about the huge explosion of comic book movies has brought, to me personally, is being able to see the comics/cartoons that I grew up on, be brought to life on the big screen. The Justice League animated series was my one of my favorite shows as a kid and seeing seeing them come to screen brought joy to my eyes, and was something of a dream come true and that's the one major point I can give to the film as a whole.
My biggest disappointment in the film is actually Warner Brothers. They are a big bunch of idiots, to be honest. If they would've left Snyder to take his time and actually hired someone who Snyder wanted, the film would've been so much better. It's a sad fact when you can obviously tell which scenes were Snyder's and which were Whedon's. I actually loved every part of the film that you could tell was Zack's; it felt passionate and like it was coming from a fan. Whedon gave shitty one-liners and basically made me feel like I was watching a TV-movie.
A major component to why I actually liked the film was the action. It left me satisfied and I was rooting for them to just kickass and look cool doing it, because when you look at the classic "Justice League" stories, that's basically what it was. But even though the action was pretty stellar; I'm so mad at the fact of Steppenwolf looked so fake and like some of the worst CGI I've ever seen; so it mad the fights a little weak when it looks like the team is fighting a green screen. Also, the last 30-ish minutes kinda saved it for me. It was really "epic" and it felt really pure, I guess is the right word.
The cast. Oh my god the cast was so freaking good. Marvel Studios gets it right a lot of the time, but damn DC you won this one. Ezra Miller & Jason Momoa stood out like a sore thumb at how much better they were. They were so charismatic, yet intense, and altogether just right at place in their characters. Ben Affleck I'm so sorry that Whedon choose to mess you up. Affleck was stellar in BvS yet here, he felt dull and not the Batman I know he could be. Gal Gadot & Ray Fisher were both pretty good, but Gadot felt a little like she was but in the backseat, for sure reason. Henry Cavill though, he was kinda good? I couldn't really tell because half the time he looked like CGI, but I'm sure I'll get over it.
Even though there are some major problems I have with the film; Whedon, crappy CGI, and easily way too short for it too work, Zack Snyder's Justice League still works its way into my enjoyment field and I can see myself watching it further down the line. I definitely hope WB can release a longer, and more put together version, because what we got didn't live up to the hype I had for it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Groot Expectations.
James Gunn is back writing and directing the sequel to his surprise 2014 summer hit. And it might be a fresh mix tape slammed into the Walkman, but it’s much of the same again. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.
In terms of the story, it’s almost a remake of the worst Star Trek film ever made! However, this time its all done for ‘laffs’ and so works much, much better. We join Quill (Chris Pratt, “Jurassic World“), Gamora (Zoe Saldana, “Star Trek Beyond“), Drax (Dave Bautista, “Spectre“) and Rocket (the voice of Bradley Cooper) ‘ever ready’ (LOL) to save the priceless Anulax batteries of their current employees, the Sovereigns, from the ravages of some multi-dimensional being. ‘Helping’ them is Baby Groot, a twig off the old branch from the first film, again voiced (in what must be the easiest money in Hollywood) by Vin Diesel (“Fast and Furious 8“).
The Sovereign’s High Priestess (Elizabeth Debicki, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) provides payment to Gamora in the form of her chained-up evil sister Nebula (a deliciously sulky Karen Gillen, “Dr Who”, “Oculus”) but is then less than impressed when the mercenary Rocket pockets a knapsack full of the batteries. So starts a chase across the galaxy leading Quill to meet Ego (Kurt Russell, “The Hateful 8“) on the planet Ego (LOL) at the very base of his family tree.
The great thing about these films is that they don’t even TRY to be realistic. Characters get towed behind crashing spaceships and – literally- dragged through a wood backwards; others fall hundreds of feet to certain death… no, sorry, a “superhero landing”; and planets and characters are painted with a garishness never ever to be found in nature. You’ll even believe Kurt Russell is 18 again – oh that these effects were available on the NHS!
But the other saving grace for this film is the soundtrack, put together by Tyler Bates as an ode to the 80’s, with wonderful tracks by ELO, Fleetwood Mac, Cat Stevens and a host of others. The film matches the music with the action superbly.
I won’t bother commenting on the acting… who cares with this sort of film! But everyone seems to have fun with Michael Rooker (“Cliffhanger”) being particularly good in reprising his role of Yondu. There are also a wealth of memorable cameos, some of them being laugh out loud moments. While some of the pop culture references might go over a younger audience’s heads, there are still enough great one-liners and comic moments to provide general appeal. Bad guys silhouetted against the moon, ET style, was particularly memorable.
One criticism I would have though is that it’s just too darn long for an “action comedy”. The original film just about scraped into my good books by coming in under the two hour curfew. The sequel however adds another 15 minutes, which should have found its way either onto the cutting room floor or onto the “Blu Ray collector’s edition”. In particular, the final never-ending showdown of CGI manicness went on too long for my liking.
Looking back at the original 2014 review, I gave it a rather stingy FFF rating, which in retrospect I think was a bit mean given its novelty. This time the novelty has worn off, but if anything this is an even more enjoyable romp that the first outing.
James Gunn be warned though: I am unlikely to be so generous with “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3” (as threatened) which in my view might be a trip too far for this franchise. My advice would be to take a leaf out of Peter Kay’s “Car Share” book and quit while you’re ahead.
By the way, for those who are interested, the film had a reported budget of $200 million (an impressive “BvS quotient” of 80%!) and the end titles have four “monkeys“, with a humorous reprise of Stan Lee’s astronaut.