Search
Search results
John Wayne's World: Transnational Masculinity in the Fifties
Book
In a film career that spanned five decades, John Wayne became a U.S. icon of heroic individualism...
Vanishing Streets: Journeys in London
Book
Vanishing Streets reveals an American writer's twenty-year love affair with London. Beguiling and...
Darren (1599 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Dec 28, 2019
Verdict: Interesting Courtroom Drama
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
Story: Denial starts when acclaimed writer and historian Deborah Lipstadt (Weisz) has her latest book about the horrors of the Holocaust being released, only her in her book to slams historian and renowned denier David Irving (Spall). David Irving has built up a reputation for being able to fight his case and decides to sue Deborah for libel.
After the years or preparation Deborah watches how Anthony Julius (Scott) and Richard Rampton (Wilkinson) look to make a trial where Deborah will win, without having to put the holocaust on trial, they want to keep it together for argument, with the case being about proving David’s research, rather than whether the holocaust happened.
Thoughts on Denial
Characters – Deborah Lipstadt is an acclaimed author that has made her career out of writing about the horrors around the holocaust, this has created an enemy in David Irving, that she has always been denying the holocaust happened. She must defend her own accusation against him, putting her trust in a group of lawyers to fight the case, despite the fact she would like to put the spotlight on the events, over the facts being disputed. Richard Rampton is the lawyer that is running the case in the courtroom, he has methods that Deborah doesn’t like, until she sees how he has truly been planning the case. Anthony Julius runs the case behind the scenes, he has a huge reputation with his previous work which made headlines and must be strict towards Deborah over what she wants to happen in the case. David Irving is the famous Holocaust denier, he has made a career out of his theories, which has given him a huge following, he decides to sue Deborah for criticising his beliefs, where he uses his natural charisma to get people behind him, despite his anti-Semitic behaviour being clear to see.
Performances – Rachel Weisz in the leading role is great to see, she shows just how helpless Deborah looks during the case, that puts her own reputation on the line. Timothy Spall steals the show with his depiction of David Irving, showing how he is the more colourful character in the case. Tom Wilkinson shows he will always be able to bring a quiet character to life in the moments he needs to shine, while Andrew Scott proves that his rising star will get involved in the major performances.
Story – The story here follows Deborah Lipstadt who has her own book sued for libel by holocaust denier David Irving, forcing them into a court case, which will be about whether he has been making up the truth for his own benefit or whether she had the right to question his beliefs. The story is an interesting one to follow, seeing an conspiracy theorist being put in a courtroom to prove his fictional story about the truth is fascinating to see, having a court case just about whether something as horrific as the holocaust is bad enough, but seeing how everybody seemed to have a fine balance between who could win, was also interesting. The story does struggling to start with, because of the large number of time jumps, with it starting in 1994, before the case happening in 2000, with small scenes in the build up to the case, through the years, but once we get into the courtroom, we are grasp by the story.
Biopic – The biopic side of the story focuses more on the case, rather than the people involved, which could take away just how much the case did take out of the people involved.
Settings – The film does use the courtroom as the main location for the story to move forward, with most of the external locations being ideas of where the story could end up going, with most being office, apart from the haunting trip to Auschwitz.
Scene of the Movie – The court case.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The early time jumps, we seem to have one scene, then jump two more years down the line.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting courtroom drama, that shows how the truth managed to get all the way to a courtroom, when it was clear it happened, showing even conspiracy theorist could challenge the truth.
Overall: Interesting, but not Intense drama.
Fred (860 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Jul 10, 2019
What the hell did I just watch?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay, so normally as soon as I watch a film, I review it. That keeps my initial thoughts fresh. But with "Mother", I just couldn't. Because I don't know what the hell I just watched. It was only at the very end, when I realized Javier Bardem was God, that I knew I had to think back & figure out what this mess was about. And so, I slept on it. And here's the way I see it.
Bardem is God, Jennifer Lawrence is Mother Earth, Ed Harris is Adam, Michelle Pfeiffer is Eve. Their sons are of course, Cain & Able & everyone else is the human race. So, now it clicks and I understand what the movie is about. It's a great premise. However, it's a terrible movie.
Let's start with the acting. It is terrible. Normally greats like Lawrence, Harris & Bardem would light up the screen, but here they come across as over-the-top novice actors. I blame the dialogue & the direction, of course. At no point during the film did I feel that any of the actors were even acting. This brings me to the next point.
No one in the film acts like they should act. Now, I get that they are playing people who are the interpretation of biblical beings. But come on. These people barge in to your home and you're like "Can you please...." and "Go downstairs..." when it should be "Get the f*ck out of my house!!!" Perhaps if I knew the meaning before I watched the movie, I would have picked up on the way they were acting in these situations, but even now knowing, I find it so goddamn annoying. That may be the one word that best describes this movie. Annoying. When you want to scream at the screen to tell people how to act in a situation, it's just annoying. There's nothing worse than a movie where someone is treated like shit & they don't do anything about it. That's the entire movie.
Sure, you can sit back & think that people are over-populating the Earth. And that God is super-interested in being worshipped and some people are trying to help the Earth, while others treat it like garbage. Blah blah blah. The movie is still not a good movie. The idea is great & should have made for a great movie, but it's execution is terrible. I would actually think about watching it again, knowing what I know now, but thinking about how bad the movie is, I doubt that would happen. This would probably have been better as a book. I'm giving it 4 points for the idea, but 0 extra points for the movie.
Bardem is God, Jennifer Lawrence is Mother Earth, Ed Harris is Adam, Michelle Pfeiffer is Eve. Their sons are of course, Cain & Able & everyone else is the human race. So, now it clicks and I understand what the movie is about. It's a great premise. However, it's a terrible movie.
Let's start with the acting. It is terrible. Normally greats like Lawrence, Harris & Bardem would light up the screen, but here they come across as over-the-top novice actors. I blame the dialogue & the direction, of course. At no point during the film did I feel that any of the actors were even acting. This brings me to the next point.
No one in the film acts like they should act. Now, I get that they are playing people who are the interpretation of biblical beings. But come on. These people barge in to your home and you're like "Can you please...." and "Go downstairs..." when it should be "Get the f*ck out of my house!!!" Perhaps if I knew the meaning before I watched the movie, I would have picked up on the way they were acting in these situations, but even now knowing, I find it so goddamn annoying. That may be the one word that best describes this movie. Annoying. When you want to scream at the screen to tell people how to act in a situation, it's just annoying. There's nothing worse than a movie where someone is treated like shit & they don't do anything about it. That's the entire movie.
Sure, you can sit back & think that people are over-populating the Earth. And that God is super-interested in being worshipped and some people are trying to help the Earth, while others treat it like garbage. Blah blah blah. The movie is still not a good movie. The idea is great & should have made for a great movie, but it's execution is terrible. I would actually think about watching it again, knowing what I know now, but thinking about how bad the movie is, I doubt that would happen. This would probably have been better as a book. I'm giving it 4 points for the idea, but 0 extra points for the movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Courier (2020) in Movies
Aug 16, 2021
Cumberbatch is brilliant. (1 more)
Great real life history lesson
A peerless Cumberbatch and a miscast Buckley.
It's not to be confused with the Olga Kurylenko / Gary Oldman 2019 movie of the same title. But with a fresh Berlin current-day Russian spy scandal in the news this week, seeing the cold war spy drama "The Courier" is a timely thing to do.
Positives:
- Benedict Cumberbatch is outstandingly good in this. He could have been born to play the slightly bemused English gentlemen of the time. All golf, tweed suits and gentlemen's clubs. No spoilers, but there is a physical transformation as well that's impressive to observe. The film would have been decidedly so-so I think without that core central performance.
- The film is based on a true story. As someone who was born in 1961, it's a good reminder to count our blessings that you, me and everyone else are still around to live our lives at all. The world was on the brink of a precipice and learning the story of Wynne's part in this was insightful history.
- There's a nice catchy Russian-themed score by Abel Korzeniowski.
Negatives:
- I'm a big fan of Jessie Buckley. Really, I am. And to be fair to her, her performance is really good. I particularly liked a scene where she dismissed on the doorstep a local busybody. But I just didn't see her as Wynne's pearl-neckless-wearing wife in this part. Perhaps the problem is that although there's a 13 year age gap between the leads, I always imagine Buckley as being much younger that her 31 years. For whatever reason, the casting didn't work for me.
Summary Thoughts on "The Courier": As a true-life spy story, the movie is interesting and Cumberbatch's performance is brilliant. But I can't say that I was 100% grabbed by it. While having a few moments of high drama and tension - particularly one on a plane - I never felt that to be maintained for enough of the movie. Director Dominic Cooke has a limited filmography (with the Saoirse Ronan movie "On Chesil Beach" being his only other feature) and writer Tom O'Connor is the guy behind the more flippant "Hitman's Bodyguard" films. Perhaps a more experienced writer/director team would have elevated this to a higher level.
So it's eminently watchable but not memorable. Just a marginal hit in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Benedict Cumberbatch is outstandingly good in this. He could have been born to play the slightly bemused English gentlemen of the time. All golf, tweed suits and gentlemen's clubs. No spoilers, but there is a physical transformation as well that's impressive to observe. The film would have been decidedly so-so I think without that core central performance.
- The film is based on a true story. As someone who was born in 1961, it's a good reminder to count our blessings that you, me and everyone else are still around to live our lives at all. The world was on the brink of a precipice and learning the story of Wynne's part in this was insightful history.
- There's a nice catchy Russian-themed score by Abel Korzeniowski.
Negatives:
- I'm a big fan of Jessie Buckley. Really, I am. And to be fair to her, her performance is really good. I particularly liked a scene where she dismissed on the doorstep a local busybody. But I just didn't see her as Wynne's pearl-neckless-wearing wife in this part. Perhaps the problem is that although there's a 13 year age gap between the leads, I always imagine Buckley as being much younger that her 31 years. For whatever reason, the casting didn't work for me.
Summary Thoughts on "The Courier": As a true-life spy story, the movie is interesting and Cumberbatch's performance is brilliant. But I can't say that I was 100% grabbed by it. While having a few moments of high drama and tension - particularly one on a plane - I never felt that to be maintained for enough of the movie. Director Dominic Cooke has a limited filmography (with the Saoirse Ronan movie "On Chesil Beach" being his only other feature) and writer Tom O'Connor is the guy behind the more flippant "Hitman's Bodyguard" films. Perhaps a more experienced writer/director team would have elevated this to a higher level.
So it's eminently watchable but not memorable. Just a marginal hit in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
And on That Bombshell: Inside the Madness and Genius of Top Gear
Book
I was Top Gear's script editor for 13 years and all 22 series. I basically used to check spelling...
A Brief History of Walt Disney
Book
Both a fascinating account of Walt Disney's own significant artistic creations, from the iconic...
Screenwriting Tips, You Hack: 150 Practical Pointers for Becoming a Better Screenwriter
Book
Screenwriting Tip #99 Voice-over usually feels like scaffolding. You know-something you left in...
It’s a long time since I read George Orwell’s 1984, but it is one of those books that stays with you - and my son recently wanted to watch the film with John Hurt (which was very good, by the way!).
If you’ve ever wondered what happened what happened to Winston Smith’s girlfriend both before, during and after the original novel, then this book will answer those questions.
Julia starts off being able to navigate the world under the ideology of IngSoc and the rule of the Party, for example, she’s a member of the Anti-Sex League whilst being promiscuous at the same time: she plays their game, but leads her own life in secret. She’s good at protecting herself - right up until she encounters Winston. And then she loses her grip on her self-preservation skills.
A lot of the scenes are the same as in the original and written from Julia’s point of view, and I enjoyed reading about the backstory of Oceania and the countryside that at first didn’t seem to be effected by the Party. I don’t think Julia detracted from the original. In fact she adds to it.
1984 was written between 1946 and 1949 shortly after WW2, and Orwell was very close historically to Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. It was a time of geopolitical tension and fear of totalitarianism. Sandra Newman was able to write Julia at a considerable distance from these regimes. I’m not saying this is better, just different. Newman has seen the fall of both regimes and is perhaps able to write with more perspective. She can take social media into account for one thing (it gives the Two Minutes Hate a run for it’s money, that’s for sure!).
I enjoyed this. If you’re interested in the female perspective on 1984, then you’ll probably enjoy it too.
If you’ve ever wondered what happened what happened to Winston Smith’s girlfriend both before, during and after the original novel, then this book will answer those questions.
Julia starts off being able to navigate the world under the ideology of IngSoc and the rule of the Party, for example, she’s a member of the Anti-Sex League whilst being promiscuous at the same time: she plays their game, but leads her own life in secret. She’s good at protecting herself - right up until she encounters Winston. And then she loses her grip on her self-preservation skills.
A lot of the scenes are the same as in the original and written from Julia’s point of view, and I enjoyed reading about the backstory of Oceania and the countryside that at first didn’t seem to be effected by the Party. I don’t think Julia detracted from the original. In fact she adds to it.
1984 was written between 1946 and 1949 shortly after WW2, and Orwell was very close historically to Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. It was a time of geopolitical tension and fear of totalitarianism. Sandra Newman was able to write Julia at a considerable distance from these regimes. I’m not saying this is better, just different. Newman has seen the fall of both regimes and is perhaps able to write with more perspective. She can take social media into account for one thing (it gives the Two Minutes Hate a run for it’s money, that’s for sure!).
I enjoyed this. If you’re interested in the female perspective on 1984, then you’ll probably enjoy it too.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mortal Engines (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
At last, the hilarious Brexit comedy we’ve all been waiting for.
As comedy goes it’s classic gold! London has been transferred, presumably via a futuristic big-arsed forklift truck of some kind, onto a huge chassis and is now chugging its way across mainland Europe. Needing fuel, it has the capability to gobble-up other roving towns and cities (take that Barnier!) which London ‘digests’ (smoke that Tusk!). Curiously, the captured cities’ inhabitants are not exterminated but integrated into the City’s population: so much for any anti-immigration policy! (LOL).
But all doesn’t go entirely smoothly for the UK capital. The Lord Mayor of London (Patrick Malahide) declares “We should never have gone into Europe. It’s the biggest mistake we ever made”. (Classic: how we SNORTED with laughter!)
Cities on wheels. London in hot pursuit of a Bavarian mining town. (Some things you just write, and then have to do a double take!). (Source: Universal Pictures International).
Stuffing it squarely to the ‘remainers’, London makes its own future. “It’s time to show the world how strong London can be”. Having conquered most of Europe, it’s time to set its sights on new markets to conquer: so London takes the Chinese on! (Now the tears of laughter are flowing freely!) Trade deals have never been more entertaining since “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace”!
Well, perhaps not
OK, so in the interests of ‘advertising standards’, I’d better make clear before you rush out to the cinema expecting a comedy feature that my tongue is firmly in my cheek here. For “Mortal Engines” is the latest sci-fi feature from Peter Jackson. But when viewed from a Brexit perspective, it’s friggin’ hilarious!
In terms of plot, this (like “Waterworld”) makes clever use of the Universal logo to set the agenda. The world has been decimated with a worldwide war – though clearly one that selectively destroyed bits of London and not others! – and the survivors must try to survive in any way they can. Settlements are divided between those that are ‘static’ and those (like London) that are mobile and constantly evolving: “Municipal Darwinism” as it is hysterically described. But London, or rather the power-crazed Londoner Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving), wants revolution rather than evolution and he is working on development of one of the super-weapons that started the world’s demise in the first place.
But Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), separated when young from her mother Pandora (yes, she has a box and we’ve seen it: wink, wink) is intent on stopping him, since she is on a personal path of vengence. Teaming up with Londoner Tom (Robert Sheehan) and activist Anna Fang (Jihae) they must face both Thaddeus and the ever-relentless Shrike (Stephen Lang) to try to derail the destructive plan.
“I’m not subtle”
So says Anna Fang, but then neither is this movie. The film is loud and action-filled and (as a significant plus) visually extremely impressive with it. I’m not a great fan of excessive CGI but here it is essential, and the special-effects team do a great job. The production design is tremendous – a lot of money has been thrown at this – and the costume design inventive, a high-spot (again snortworthy) being the Beefeater guards costumes!
Where the film really crashes, like a post-Brexit stock market, is with the dialogue. The screenplay by Jackson himself, with his regular writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens contains some absolute clunkers, notwithstanding the unintended LOL-worthy Brexit irony. It’s jaw-droppingly bad, believe me.
The turns
The only real “name” in the whole film is Jackson-favourite Hugo Weaving. Just about everyone else in the cast is pretty well unknown, and in many cases it shows. Standing head and shoulders though for me over the rest of the cast was Icelandic actress Hera Hilmar, who strikes a splendidly feisty pose as the mentally and physically scarred Hester. I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Plagerism: the movie
Story-wise, there’s not a sci-fi film that’s not been looted, and a number of other films seem to be plundered too. (I can’t comment on how much of this comes from the source book by Philip Reeve). The Londonmobile looks for all the world like Monty Python’s “Crimson Permanent Assurance Company”; the teenage female lead is Sarah Connors, relentlessly pursued by The Terminator; the male lead is archaologist cum hot-shot pilot Indiana Solo, leather jacket and all; there is a Blade Runner moment; a battle that is a meld of “The Great Wall” and Morannon from “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”; a less sophisticated aerial location from “The Empire Strikes Back”; and another classic Star Wars moment (without the words being actually said!).
A case of the Jackson Pollocks
Now I’m loathe to say anything bad about director Peter Jackson, after his breathtakingly memorable “They Shall Not Grown Old“. And the film has its moments of flair, most memorably a “life flashing before your eyes scene” that I found genuinely moving. But overall, as an actioner, it’s a bit of a mess.
It’s a long way from being the worse film I’ve seen this year by a long stroke – it kept me interested and amused in equal measure for the running time. But I think given it’s initially bombed at the Box Office, any plans Jackson had to deliver a series of these movies might need to be self-funded.
But all doesn’t go entirely smoothly for the UK capital. The Lord Mayor of London (Patrick Malahide) declares “We should never have gone into Europe. It’s the biggest mistake we ever made”. (Classic: how we SNORTED with laughter!)
Cities on wheels. London in hot pursuit of a Bavarian mining town. (Some things you just write, and then have to do a double take!). (Source: Universal Pictures International).
Stuffing it squarely to the ‘remainers’, London makes its own future. “It’s time to show the world how strong London can be”. Having conquered most of Europe, it’s time to set its sights on new markets to conquer: so London takes the Chinese on! (Now the tears of laughter are flowing freely!) Trade deals have never been more entertaining since “Star Wars: The Phantom Menace”!
Well, perhaps not
OK, so in the interests of ‘advertising standards’, I’d better make clear before you rush out to the cinema expecting a comedy feature that my tongue is firmly in my cheek here. For “Mortal Engines” is the latest sci-fi feature from Peter Jackson. But when viewed from a Brexit perspective, it’s friggin’ hilarious!
In terms of plot, this (like “Waterworld”) makes clever use of the Universal logo to set the agenda. The world has been decimated with a worldwide war – though clearly one that selectively destroyed bits of London and not others! – and the survivors must try to survive in any way they can. Settlements are divided between those that are ‘static’ and those (like London) that are mobile and constantly evolving: “Municipal Darwinism” as it is hysterically described. But London, or rather the power-crazed Londoner Thaddeus Valentine (Hugo Weaving), wants revolution rather than evolution and he is working on development of one of the super-weapons that started the world’s demise in the first place.
But Hester Shaw (Hera Hilmar), separated when young from her mother Pandora (yes, she has a box and we’ve seen it: wink, wink) is intent on stopping him, since she is on a personal path of vengence. Teaming up with Londoner Tom (Robert Sheehan) and activist Anna Fang (Jihae) they must face both Thaddeus and the ever-relentless Shrike (Stephen Lang) to try to derail the destructive plan.
“I’m not subtle”
So says Anna Fang, but then neither is this movie. The film is loud and action-filled and (as a significant plus) visually extremely impressive with it. I’m not a great fan of excessive CGI but here it is essential, and the special-effects team do a great job. The production design is tremendous – a lot of money has been thrown at this – and the costume design inventive, a high-spot (again snortworthy) being the Beefeater guards costumes!
Where the film really crashes, like a post-Brexit stock market, is with the dialogue. The screenplay by Jackson himself, with his regular writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens contains some absolute clunkers, notwithstanding the unintended LOL-worthy Brexit irony. It’s jaw-droppingly bad, believe me.
The turns
The only real “name” in the whole film is Jackson-favourite Hugo Weaving. Just about everyone else in the cast is pretty well unknown, and in many cases it shows. Standing head and shoulders though for me over the rest of the cast was Icelandic actress Hera Hilmar, who strikes a splendidly feisty pose as the mentally and physically scarred Hester. I look forward to seeing what she does next.
Plagerism: the movie
Story-wise, there’s not a sci-fi film that’s not been looted, and a number of other films seem to be plundered too. (I can’t comment on how much of this comes from the source book by Philip Reeve). The Londonmobile looks for all the world like Monty Python’s “Crimson Permanent Assurance Company”; the teenage female lead is Sarah Connors, relentlessly pursued by The Terminator; the male lead is archaologist cum hot-shot pilot Indiana Solo, leather jacket and all; there is a Blade Runner moment; a battle that is a meld of “The Great Wall” and Morannon from “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers”; a less sophisticated aerial location from “The Empire Strikes Back”; and another classic Star Wars moment (without the words being actually said!).
A case of the Jackson Pollocks
Now I’m loathe to say anything bad about director Peter Jackson, after his breathtakingly memorable “They Shall Not Grown Old“. And the film has its moments of flair, most memorably a “life flashing before your eyes scene” that I found genuinely moving. But overall, as an actioner, it’s a bit of a mess.
It’s a long way from being the worse film I’ve seen this year by a long stroke – it kept me interested and amused in equal measure for the running time. But I think given it’s initially bombed at the Box Office, any plans Jackson had to deliver a series of these movies might need to be self-funded.