Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) in Movies
Sep 25, 2020
Terrific, under-rated gem
Coen Brother's films fall into 3 categories for me:
Terrific, well-known films: FARGO, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, THE BIG LEBOWSKI
Terrible, overly-indulgent films: HAIL CAESAR, A SERIOUS MAN, BURN AFTER READING
Under-rated gems: BARTON FINK, MILLER'S CROSSING, THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS
And this film, the 1994 homage to 1940's fast-talking comedies THE HUDSUCKER PROXY.
Set in the business world, THE HUDSUCKER PROXY tells the tale of a young, ambitious corporate ladder climber who is taken under the thumb of a conniving business exec who wants to use the young man as a patsy for the business.
Tim Robbins stars as the young, ambitious Norville Barnes who's "gee shucks" demeanor and the faithful belief in those around him anchors this film in a common decency that Robbins exudes in spades. Countering Robbins is a crafty film veteran - Paul Newman as evil, corrupt Corporate Executive Sidney J. Mussburger. Newman was winding down his career at this point, so must have seen something in the script that caught his eye, for Newman has a spark and a spring in his step that shows that the old man "still has it". He plays off of Robbins well and it is a joy to watch this veteran actor work. Equally interesting in this film is Jennifer Jason Leigh who channels her inner Rosalind Russell as fast-talking, hard-pushing reporter (and erstwhile girlfriend of Barnes), Amy Archer.
But this being a Coen Brothers film, this movie is just as strongly about the atmosphere and the dialogue as it is the characters - and what an atmosphere they create. Delivering a strong "1940's Art Deco meets Techno-Punk" theme, the Coens deliver a visually interesting world that is incorporated with intriguing characters.
In other words - it's a Coen Brothers comedy - and one that is well done.
To tell more about the story is to spoil the picture, but realize that this film is well made, well scripted and well acted (if a little slight on story). It is a very entertaining way to spend a few hours.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Terrific, well-known films: FARGO, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, THE BIG LEBOWSKI
Terrible, overly-indulgent films: HAIL CAESAR, A SERIOUS MAN, BURN AFTER READING
Under-rated gems: BARTON FINK, MILLER'S CROSSING, THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS
And this film, the 1994 homage to 1940's fast-talking comedies THE HUDSUCKER PROXY.
Set in the business world, THE HUDSUCKER PROXY tells the tale of a young, ambitious corporate ladder climber who is taken under the thumb of a conniving business exec who wants to use the young man as a patsy for the business.
Tim Robbins stars as the young, ambitious Norville Barnes who's "gee shucks" demeanor and the faithful belief in those around him anchors this film in a common decency that Robbins exudes in spades. Countering Robbins is a crafty film veteran - Paul Newman as evil, corrupt Corporate Executive Sidney J. Mussburger. Newman was winding down his career at this point, so must have seen something in the script that caught his eye, for Newman has a spark and a spring in his step that shows that the old man "still has it". He plays off of Robbins well and it is a joy to watch this veteran actor work. Equally interesting in this film is Jennifer Jason Leigh who channels her inner Rosalind Russell as fast-talking, hard-pushing reporter (and erstwhile girlfriend of Barnes), Amy Archer.
But this being a Coen Brothers film, this movie is just as strongly about the atmosphere and the dialogue as it is the characters - and what an atmosphere they create. Delivering a strong "1940's Art Deco meets Techno-Punk" theme, the Coens deliver a visually interesting world that is incorporated with intriguing characters.
In other words - it's a Coen Brothers comedy - and one that is well done.
To tell more about the story is to spoil the picture, but realize that this film is well made, well scripted and well acted (if a little slight on story). It is a very entertaining way to spend a few hours.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018
Apes...together...strong!
The recent revival of the Apes franchise has managed to defy all expectations by not only being a worthy entry into the franchise, but also being strong films on their own merit. Working as a kind-of-prequel-reboot of the old franchise, and ignoring the Tim Burton film completely, it is strange to realise this is only the third film since the reboot. Lesser franchises would have churned out one every year or two, and be up to part five by now, but not the Apes films. It genuinely feels like they are taking time to ensure each film is worthy. Which is where another expectation is defied – the films don’t seem to diminish in quality, nor feel repetitive. Each entry so far has had its own feel and worked to move the story along. War for the Planet of the Apes is no exception, and is one of the finest blockbuster films of this year.
It has been 15 years since the events of the first film, and the release of the Simian Flu virus that wiped out a large percentage of humanity. The events of the second film saw the start of conflict between the apes and humans, instigated by Koba who defied Caesar’s leadership. Now, humanity are hunting down the apes, with one Colonel (Woody Harrelson) in particular striving to wipe them out entirely. When that Colonel attacks Caesar’s tribe, killing those close to him, it sets the ape leader off on a personal revenge journey, with only a few of his most loyal followers supporting him on the way. However, along the way they encounter two new recruits, an ape hermit who has also developed speech, and a young human girl who is showing signs of a new strain of the Simian virus.
It is a testament to the motion captured performances and the quality of the CGI on offer that at no point during the film do you not believe that the apes on screen are real. There’s a line in the film where Harrelson’s Colonel comments on how human looking Caesar’s eyes are, and whilst you could see that in the context of the film series’ arc (apes are becoming the new rulers, usurping humanity, and so are becoming more human), you can also see it as a nod to how the ‘uncanny valley’ dead-eye stare that plagues CGI in film is entirely absent here. Indeed, given that every scene in this relatively moderate $150million budget film is an effect shot, as apes are present throughout, it is jaw dropping that it looks a far more polished film than, for example, the $265million budgeted Rogue One – a film which tried desperately with two key CGI characters and failed so hard in the brief screen time they had. Over all the Apes series has impressed with the effects work, but here it is pretty much flawless.
But it isn’t all about the effects. In fact the action-packed film the trailers seemed to hint at is instead a thoughtful, character-driven revenge journey, with only short bursts of action. This is Caesar’s dark-journey of the soul, the end result of his attempts to live a peaceful co-existence with a humanity that fears him and his kind. Many comparisons can be drawn to films such as Apocalypse Now (something the film is aware of and manages to drop a reference to as a result), where a troubled individual, tired of war, seeks a crazed Colonel who is amassing his own army for an unknown purpose. The two core leads in their respective roles give their all. Serkis acting to a high degree, and giving genuine life to Caesar, and Harrelson gone completely Brando in his part, menacing without being overbearing.
The journey itself is a compelling story, and the support characters, some who we already know (Maurice, Luca and Rocket) acting as the conscience and the advisers to the troubled Caesar. The new additions, Amiah Miller’s war orphan who Maurice adopts on their journey, and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) offer heart and comic relief respectively. The comic timing is perfectly placed, never feeling forced, and being deftly used to offer a glimmer of hope and joy in what is otherwise a very dark tale.
The film, overall, nicely rounds out the trilogy, whilst still leaving room for future films down the line. Matt Reeves’ direction makes effective use of his cast and settings, whilst the score by Michael Giacchino has grown more ‘ape-inspired’ since he scored the previous film, reflecting in its drums and pipes the more primate nature manner the world is taking as technology and humanity dwindles.
“Apes together strong!” is Caesar’s mantra. Indeed, all three Apes films, when viewed together, can be seen as one impressive, strong story, with a genuine progression throughout. A third film in a franchise usually derails and loses the way. Not here as this is one of the finest examples of intelligent blockbuster that you will find.
It has been 15 years since the events of the first film, and the release of the Simian Flu virus that wiped out a large percentage of humanity. The events of the second film saw the start of conflict between the apes and humans, instigated by Koba who defied Caesar’s leadership. Now, humanity are hunting down the apes, with one Colonel (Woody Harrelson) in particular striving to wipe them out entirely. When that Colonel attacks Caesar’s tribe, killing those close to him, it sets the ape leader off on a personal revenge journey, with only a few of his most loyal followers supporting him on the way. However, along the way they encounter two new recruits, an ape hermit who has also developed speech, and a young human girl who is showing signs of a new strain of the Simian virus.
It is a testament to the motion captured performances and the quality of the CGI on offer that at no point during the film do you not believe that the apes on screen are real. There’s a line in the film where Harrelson’s Colonel comments on how human looking Caesar’s eyes are, and whilst you could see that in the context of the film series’ arc (apes are becoming the new rulers, usurping humanity, and so are becoming more human), you can also see it as a nod to how the ‘uncanny valley’ dead-eye stare that plagues CGI in film is entirely absent here. Indeed, given that every scene in this relatively moderate $150million budget film is an effect shot, as apes are present throughout, it is jaw dropping that it looks a far more polished film than, for example, the $265million budgeted Rogue One – a film which tried desperately with two key CGI characters and failed so hard in the brief screen time they had. Over all the Apes series has impressed with the effects work, but here it is pretty much flawless.
But it isn’t all about the effects. In fact the action-packed film the trailers seemed to hint at is instead a thoughtful, character-driven revenge journey, with only short bursts of action. This is Caesar’s dark-journey of the soul, the end result of his attempts to live a peaceful co-existence with a humanity that fears him and his kind. Many comparisons can be drawn to films such as Apocalypse Now (something the film is aware of and manages to drop a reference to as a result), where a troubled individual, tired of war, seeks a crazed Colonel who is amassing his own army for an unknown purpose. The two core leads in their respective roles give their all. Serkis acting to a high degree, and giving genuine life to Caesar, and Harrelson gone completely Brando in his part, menacing without being overbearing.
The journey itself is a compelling story, and the support characters, some who we already know (Maurice, Luca and Rocket) acting as the conscience and the advisers to the troubled Caesar. The new additions, Amiah Miller’s war orphan who Maurice adopts on their journey, and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) offer heart and comic relief respectively. The comic timing is perfectly placed, never feeling forced, and being deftly used to offer a glimmer of hope and joy in what is otherwise a very dark tale.
The film, overall, nicely rounds out the trilogy, whilst still leaving room for future films down the line. Matt Reeves’ direction makes effective use of his cast and settings, whilst the score by Michael Giacchino has grown more ‘ape-inspired’ since he scored the previous film, reflecting in its drums and pipes the more primate nature manner the world is taking as technology and humanity dwindles.
“Apes together strong!” is Caesar’s mantra. Indeed, all three Apes films, when viewed together, can be seen as one impressive, strong story, with a genuine progression throughout. A third film in a franchise usually derails and loses the way. Not here as this is one of the finest examples of intelligent blockbuster that you will find.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Umbrella Academy in TV
Mar 7, 2019 (Updated Mar 7, 2019)
Characters (1 more)
SFX
One For A Rainy Day
A few years ago when I heard the guy from My Chemical Romance had wrote a graphic novel, it peaked my interest, but after reading up on some reviews of the book, it just sounded like a rip-off of other properties like Watchmen and X-Men and to be honest I wasn't a huge fan of the obscure character designs and bizarre artwork. I never got around to reading it after this as I was kind of put off by the accusations of unoriginality and the weird art.
Then late last year, I read that there was a Netflix adaption of the show being released and my curiosity was once again peaked. After reading some of the early glowing reviews from critics, I knew that I had found my next binge.
This show is fantastic, which for the most part is owed to it's well written and well acted characters. The members of the Umbrella Academy and their various odd relationships with one another, as well as the outsiders that have interaction with them throughout the show, make the character dynamics of this show as a whole pretty unique and exciting. The cast are all brilliant, with Robert Sheehan's Klaus being the clear stand-out. He gets all of the best lines and nails the American accent that he speaks with in the show.
It is cool to get an insight into the world that the show-runners have crafted, which is as odd as it is charming. It is similar to our own world, with a few pretty drastic changes that change the dynamic of the universe in a oddly interesting way. There were points while watching the show that I was reminded of other superhero stories like Watchmen and X-Men, but instead of Umbrella Academy blatantly ripping off these other stories, it instead takes some of the best parts from its respective influences and adapts them to suit the narrative that is unfolding. It comes off as more of a wink and a nod than just a lazy copy/paste job.
I also feel like the amazing CGI work on Pogo the chimp, - who is highly intelligent and serves as the family's butler, - deserves a shout-out. It is quite possibly the best CGI that I have ever seen in a TV show and is almost on the same level as the CGI on Caesar in the Planet Of The Apes movies.
Overall, The Umbrella Academy is a stellar example of what happens when a show embraces it's influences and presents them in a coherent way in collaboration with the original story that the show itself is telling. It is not the greatest superhero story ever filmed, but it is an extremely entertaining and satisfying ride that the show takes you on over its 10 episodes and it is well worth your time.
Then late last year, I read that there was a Netflix adaption of the show being released and my curiosity was once again peaked. After reading some of the early glowing reviews from critics, I knew that I had found my next binge.
This show is fantastic, which for the most part is owed to it's well written and well acted characters. The members of the Umbrella Academy and their various odd relationships with one another, as well as the outsiders that have interaction with them throughout the show, make the character dynamics of this show as a whole pretty unique and exciting. The cast are all brilliant, with Robert Sheehan's Klaus being the clear stand-out. He gets all of the best lines and nails the American accent that he speaks with in the show.
It is cool to get an insight into the world that the show-runners have crafted, which is as odd as it is charming. It is similar to our own world, with a few pretty drastic changes that change the dynamic of the universe in a oddly interesting way. There were points while watching the show that I was reminded of other superhero stories like Watchmen and X-Men, but instead of Umbrella Academy blatantly ripping off these other stories, it instead takes some of the best parts from its respective influences and adapts them to suit the narrative that is unfolding. It comes off as more of a wink and a nod than just a lazy copy/paste job.
I also feel like the amazing CGI work on Pogo the chimp, - who is highly intelligent and serves as the family's butler, - deserves a shout-out. It is quite possibly the best CGI that I have ever seen in a TV show and is almost on the same level as the CGI on Caesar in the Planet Of The Apes movies.
Overall, The Umbrella Academy is a stellar example of what happens when a show embraces it's influences and presents them in a coherent way in collaboration with the original story that the show itself is telling. It is not the greatest superhero story ever filmed, but it is an extremely entertaining and satisfying ride that the show takes you on over its 10 episodes and it is well worth your time.
World's Best Drinks
Book
Travel the world from the comfort of your own living room! From the people who have been delivering...
Barbecue Recipes HD
Food & Drink and Lifestyle
App
The trick to making your BBQ food tasting great is using flavors that you like as well as using good...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Chappie (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A little rough around the edges
District 9 was a tough act to follow for first-time director Neill Blomkamp. His follow up to 2009’s sci-fi sleeper hit was the mediocre Elysium that whilst having a gargantuan budget and the likes of Jodie Foster and Matt Damon, failed on the most basic of levels – storytelling.
Here, Blomkamp returns a little wiser and much richer with Chappie. But does it hark back to the brilliance of District 9?
Chappie follows the story of the titular robot, created by Deon Wilson (Dev Patel), as he grows up in the violent city of Johannesburg. Due to the increasing crime rates, Wilson has created a force of robotic police officers, known as Scouts.
Despite the gritty nature of the film, the cityscapes are stunning with the sweeping shots of the South African metropolis perfectly blended with claustrophobic ruins and towering skyscrapers.
Hugh Jackman stars as ex-soldier Vincent Moore, a man hell bent on proving the capabilities of his own robot, The Moose, even if that means going against the protocols of his employers Tetravaal. Sigourney Weaver also stars as the CEO of the aforementioned corporation.
Unfortunately, side-lining Jackman and to a greater extent Weaver hurts the film. We see Chappie grow from a young child-like robot through to a young adult but Jackman and Weaver only show their faces for very brief moments at a time, though they manage to show their prowess in each scene.
Instead, we are lumbered with real-life pop group Die Antwoord in two roles as Chappie’s ‘mommy’ and ‘daddy’, and despite their decent acting skills and intriguing screen presence, they fail to make as much of an impression as the big names.
Chappie hits home hard and often on just how violent a species we are and the fact that the titular robot doesn’t understand why we can be so cruel only deepens the emotional connection forged for him.
Sharlto Copley, a Blomkamp staple, must be given high praise for crafting such a brilliant cast-member in the motion-captured Chappie. The robot rivals Caesar from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes for sheer realism, and credit must be given to the entire crew for making us feel for a character that has very few human characteristics.
Nevertheless, there is a real issue with the film’s narrative. There are moments of comedic brilliance that are hastily juxtaposed with ones of
sadness and gore, and despite Blomkamp’s best efforts to merge them together, it fails and this becomes increasingly evident in the film’s admittedly exciting finale.
Pacing, a blight that plagued Elysium, is again a problem here. The first 40 minutes of the film drag to such an extent that it feels much longer than its 2 hour running time. This is a huge shame as once it gets going, Chappie rarely lets up until the end credits roll.
Overall, despite not reaching the dizzying heights of the brilliant District 9, director Neill Blomkamp is back on the right track and has crafted a beautifully shot, richly detailed and hugely emotional film – despite his insistence on pushing the most intriguing human characters into the background.
Like the titular character himself, Chappie is charming, if a little rough around the edges and has a lack of story definition, but if you’re a fan of Blomkamp’s work, there’s no reason why you’d be disappointed with what’s on offer.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/08/a-little-rough-around-the-edges-chappie-review/
Here, Blomkamp returns a little wiser and much richer with Chappie. But does it hark back to the brilliance of District 9?
Chappie follows the story of the titular robot, created by Deon Wilson (Dev Patel), as he grows up in the violent city of Johannesburg. Due to the increasing crime rates, Wilson has created a force of robotic police officers, known as Scouts.
Despite the gritty nature of the film, the cityscapes are stunning with the sweeping shots of the South African metropolis perfectly blended with claustrophobic ruins and towering skyscrapers.
Hugh Jackman stars as ex-soldier Vincent Moore, a man hell bent on proving the capabilities of his own robot, The Moose, even if that means going against the protocols of his employers Tetravaal. Sigourney Weaver also stars as the CEO of the aforementioned corporation.
Unfortunately, side-lining Jackman and to a greater extent Weaver hurts the film. We see Chappie grow from a young child-like robot through to a young adult but Jackman and Weaver only show their faces for very brief moments at a time, though they manage to show their prowess in each scene.
Instead, we are lumbered with real-life pop group Die Antwoord in two roles as Chappie’s ‘mommy’ and ‘daddy’, and despite their decent acting skills and intriguing screen presence, they fail to make as much of an impression as the big names.
Chappie hits home hard and often on just how violent a species we are and the fact that the titular robot doesn’t understand why we can be so cruel only deepens the emotional connection forged for him.
Sharlto Copley, a Blomkamp staple, must be given high praise for crafting such a brilliant cast-member in the motion-captured Chappie. The robot rivals Caesar from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes for sheer realism, and credit must be given to the entire crew for making us feel for a character that has very few human characteristics.
Nevertheless, there is a real issue with the film’s narrative. There are moments of comedic brilliance that are hastily juxtaposed with ones of
sadness and gore, and despite Blomkamp’s best efforts to merge them together, it fails and this becomes increasingly evident in the film’s admittedly exciting finale.
Pacing, a blight that plagued Elysium, is again a problem here. The first 40 minutes of the film drag to such an extent that it feels much longer than its 2 hour running time. This is a huge shame as once it gets going, Chappie rarely lets up until the end credits roll.
Overall, despite not reaching the dizzying heights of the brilliant District 9, director Neill Blomkamp is back on the right track and has crafted a beautifully shot, richly detailed and hugely emotional film – despite his insistence on pushing the most intriguing human characters into the background.
Like the titular character himself, Chappie is charming, if a little rough around the edges and has a lack of story definition, but if you’re a fan of Blomkamp’s work, there’s no reason why you’d be disappointed with what’s on offer.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/08/a-little-rough-around-the-edges-chappie-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost in the Shell (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A robot you could take home to meet mother.
I was intrigued to watch the other day (purely for the interest in the technology employed of course!) a short Guardian video on the development of the world’s first fully functioning sex robot: a disturbing watch, requiring a fairly broad mind. Watching it on the same day as going to see Scarlett Johansson’s new film “Ghost in the Shell” though was a mistake, since the similarities between Johansson’s character (‘Major’) and the animatronic sex doll (‘Harmony’) were… erm… distracting.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Johansson is a stunning actress, with unquestionably a stunning figure that she loves to show off, but you would have to start questioning her film choices: since there is hardly a hair’s breadth between the emotionally reserved superhero depiction here and her recent roles in “Lucy” and “Under the Skin“. With her other ongoing “Avengers” superhero work as Natasha Romanoff, and nothing much else beyond that other than brief cameos (“Hail Caesar“, “Hitchcock“) and voice work, its all getting a bit ‘samey’: I’d like to see her get back to her more dramatic roles like “Lost in Translation” that really launched her career.
Anyhoo, back to this flick. Set in the dazzling fictional Japanese city of Niihama, Johansson plays a terrorist victim saved only by having her brain transplanted into an android by the Hanka corporation. In this time (40 years in the future) human ‘upgrades’ with cybernetic technology are commonplace, but Major is a ‘first of a kind’ experiment. Hanka are not pure humanitarians though, since they have turned Major into a lethal fighting weapon with powers of invisibility and lightning reactions. She works for a shadowy anti-terrorism unit called Section 9, led by the Japanese speaking Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano, “Battle Royale”).
The upside of having no human form is that if you get burned or blown up, the team of cyber-surgeons back at Hanka, led by Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche), can rebuild her – – they “have the technology” to quote another bionic hero.
But all is not necessarily well in the idyll of anti-terrorist slashing and burning. Major suffers from recurring ‘glitches’ of memories from her past life: a life that she has no clear memories of. Her latest mission against a deformed and vindictive terrorist called Kuze (Michael Pitt) progressively resurfaces more of these memories, since Kuze clearly knows more about Major than she does.
“Ghost in the Shell” looks glorious, with the Hong Kong-like city being in the style of Blade Runner but with more holograms. (What exactly the holograms are supposed to be doing or advertising is rather unclear!). The cinematography and special effects deserve an Oscar nomination.
Given the film is based on an original Manga series, written and illustrated by Masamune Shirow and well known for its complexity, this Hollywood version has a surprisingly simple and linear story. As such it may disappoint the hoard of fans who adore the original materials.
Treating it as a standalone film, it should have an emotional depth beyond the superficial action, dealing as it does with loyalty and family ties. However, the scripting and editing is rather pedestrian making the whole thing a bit dull. Johansson and Pilou Asbæk, as her co-worker Batou, breathe what life they can into the material; but Binoche is less convincing as the Dr Frankenstein-style doctor. The best act in the piece though is Takeshi Kitano as the kick-ass OAP with attitude.
Where I had particular issues was in some of the detail of the action. ‘Invisibility’ is an attribute that needs to be metered out very carefully in the movies: Harry Potter just about got away with it; in “Die Another Day” it nearly killed the Bond franchise for good. Here, exactly how the androids can achieve invisibility is never explained and I disliked that intently. Similarly, the androids can clearly be physically damaged, yet Major seems to start each mission by throwing herself headfirst off the tallest skyscraper. Again, never explained.
Even though the premise, and the opening titles, brought back bad memories of that truly terrible Star Trek episode “Spock’s Brain”, this is a dark and thoughtful adaptation with great CGI effects but unfortunately its pedestrian pace means it is one that never truly breaks through into the upper echelons of Sci Fi greatness. Worth a watch though.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Well multiversed.
In the latest Marvel film (notably now available with the snazzy new Marvel production logo at the start) Benedict Cumberbatch (“Sherlock”, “Star Trek Into Darkness”) plays the titular hero: a neurosurgeon with exceptional skills, an encyclopedic knowledge of discographies and an ego to rival Donald Trump.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Anger Begets Greater Anger”.
What is it? A black-comedy drama. But my fear would be that with such an ‘art-house’ title, it’s going to put a lot of people off… (“I saw ‘Paint Drying in Jackson, Mississippi‘, and that was dull”!). But it really really shouldn’t. FOR THIS IS A GEM OF A MOVIE… and so, so entertaining that two hours just sped by.
Frances McDormand (“Hail Caesar“, “Fargo”) plays a mother – Mildred Hayes – in pain. Her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) has been raped, set alight and murdered (so clearly LOL territory!) After ten months and no culprit arrested, she takes things into her own hands by renting the three billboards in question and posting a message to the local police chief, Willoughby (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“).
But the popular Chief Willoughby has his own problems, setting many in the town on a collision course with the feisty Mildred as tempers flare. Stoking the flames is the racist, unstable and unpredictable Officer Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell, “Moon”). The billboard advertiser Red Welby (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out“) is uncomfortably caught in the middle of the battle.
In terms of the story, nothing in this film goes in the direction you expect. Willoughby’s reaction to the crisis is extraordinary… in a good way. Dixon’s reaction is also extraordinary for different reasons! Red herrings are scattered throughout the script to further set you off balance.
The film reminded me greatly of “Manchester By The Sea“, and not just because Lucas Hedges (as Mildred’s grieving and uncomfortable son) is again playing a very similar role. There is gut-wrenching drama, but diffused in the blink-of-an-eye by laugh-out-loud dialogue. Whereas “Manchester” could perhaps be described as a drama with black comedy, “Three Billboards” is probably better described as a black comedy with drama. But the comedy is dark, oh, so very dark! Some of the lines are so outrageous (both in terms of language used – very extreme – and the racial/homophobic nature of it) that you are sometimes uncertain whether you should be laughing at all. But it’s been brilliantly balanced and orchestrated.
As I commented in “Battle of the Sexes” the Screen Actors Guild Award for “Best Ensemble Cast” is one of my favourite categories of award, and I thought that film should have been nominated (it wasn’t)! But the ensemble cast in “Three Billboards” is another great example, and this one IS nominated! (Hoorah!)
For this whole town just LIVES AND BREATHES, thanks to the combined efforts of the cast: as well as the lead names, the cast includes Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) as a diminutive used car salesman; Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby; Zeljko Ivanek as the police desk sergeant; Amanda Warren (“mother!“) as Mildred’s put-upon co-worker and (particularly) Sandy Martin as Dixon’s wizened and cranky old mother. All are fed with great lines and scenes to bring the story alive.
At the helm is writer/director (and London-born!) Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges”, “Seven Psychopaths”) and he delivers genius. I recently cruelly made fun of the writers of the awful “Pitch Perfect 3” for not coming up with any sort of viable plot. Here I am at the other extreme, in awe of how someone can sit down with a blank piece of paper and come out with this story, these characters and this dialogue. It would be foolish so early in the season to predict the Oscars, but here must be a great candidate for Original Screenplay.
Elsewhere I would see Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson both as Oscar nominees for Best Actress/Actor and Sam Rockwell is surely a shoe-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this…. I wonder what odds I can get for a win? Jason Dixon (is this perhaps a pun because he always keeps crossing “the line”?!) will I think be one of the most memorable characters for me in the cinema this year: a character you can despise, pity and even strangely admire at stages throughout the two hours. Something that Rockwell balances with consummate skill.
In terms of my one criticism, the script (in my opinion) rather over-eggs the pudding in the last ten minutes, stepping over into actions I didn’t find realistic. It was a nice ending when it came, but not one I felt invested in. So I’m going to put my (rarely used) ‘5-Fad’ back in my pocket, and instead rate this one just a tad lower. But regardless of that, ignore the title and GO AND SEE THIS ONE!
(Just a final note for those severely affected by the subject matter: while there is some significant violence in the film, the rape is not shown – i.e. there are no “flashback” scenes, apart from some – very brief – corpse photos in a folder Willoughby looks through).
Frances McDormand (“Hail Caesar“, “Fargo”) plays a mother – Mildred Hayes – in pain. Her daughter Angela (Kathryn Newton) has been raped, set alight and murdered (so clearly LOL territory!) After ten months and no culprit arrested, she takes things into her own hands by renting the three billboards in question and posting a message to the local police chief, Willoughby (Woody Harrelson, “War for the Planet of the Apes“).
But the popular Chief Willoughby has his own problems, setting many in the town on a collision course with the feisty Mildred as tempers flare. Stoking the flames is the racist, unstable and unpredictable Officer Jason Dixon (Sam Rockwell, “Moon”). The billboard advertiser Red Welby (Caleb Landry Jones, “Get Out“) is uncomfortably caught in the middle of the battle.
In terms of the story, nothing in this film goes in the direction you expect. Willoughby’s reaction to the crisis is extraordinary… in a good way. Dixon’s reaction is also extraordinary for different reasons! Red herrings are scattered throughout the script to further set you off balance.
The film reminded me greatly of “Manchester By The Sea“, and not just because Lucas Hedges (as Mildred’s grieving and uncomfortable son) is again playing a very similar role. There is gut-wrenching drama, but diffused in the blink-of-an-eye by laugh-out-loud dialogue. Whereas “Manchester” could perhaps be described as a drama with black comedy, “Three Billboards” is probably better described as a black comedy with drama. But the comedy is dark, oh, so very dark! Some of the lines are so outrageous (both in terms of language used – very extreme – and the racial/homophobic nature of it) that you are sometimes uncertain whether you should be laughing at all. But it’s been brilliantly balanced and orchestrated.
As I commented in “Battle of the Sexes” the Screen Actors Guild Award for “Best Ensemble Cast” is one of my favourite categories of award, and I thought that film should have been nominated (it wasn’t)! But the ensemble cast in “Three Billboards” is another great example, and this one IS nominated! (Hoorah!)
For this whole town just LIVES AND BREATHES, thanks to the combined efforts of the cast: as well as the lead names, the cast includes Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones”) as a diminutive used car salesman; Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby; Zeljko Ivanek as the police desk sergeant; Amanda Warren (“mother!“) as Mildred’s put-upon co-worker and (particularly) Sandy Martin as Dixon’s wizened and cranky old mother. All are fed with great lines and scenes to bring the story alive.
At the helm is writer/director (and London-born!) Martin McDonagh (“In Bruges”, “Seven Psychopaths”) and he delivers genius. I recently cruelly made fun of the writers of the awful “Pitch Perfect 3” for not coming up with any sort of viable plot. Here I am at the other extreme, in awe of how someone can sit down with a blank piece of paper and come out with this story, these characters and this dialogue. It would be foolish so early in the season to predict the Oscars, but here must be a great candidate for Original Screenplay.
Elsewhere I would see Frances McDormand and Woody Harrelson both as Oscar nominees for Best Actress/Actor and Sam Rockwell is surely a shoe-in for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this…. I wonder what odds I can get for a win? Jason Dixon (is this perhaps a pun because he always keeps crossing “the line”?!) will I think be one of the most memorable characters for me in the cinema this year: a character you can despise, pity and even strangely admire at stages throughout the two hours. Something that Rockwell balances with consummate skill.
In terms of my one criticism, the script (in my opinion) rather over-eggs the pudding in the last ten minutes, stepping over into actions I didn’t find realistic. It was a nice ending when it came, but not one I felt invested in. So I’m going to put my (rarely used) ‘5-Fad’ back in my pocket, and instead rate this one just a tad lower. But regardless of that, ignore the title and GO AND SEE THIS ONE!
(Just a final note for those severely affected by the subject matter: while there is some significant violence in the film, the rape is not shown – i.e. there are no “flashback” scenes, apart from some – very brief – corpse photos in a folder Willoughby looks through).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A stunning visual triumph.
I was a sufficient nerd to buy a “Back to the Future” T-shirt to celebrate “future day” from “Back to the Future 2” two-years ago, and I will probably be a sufficient nerd to buy a “Blade Runner” T-shirt in two-years time to celebrate the setting-date for the original film. One thing’s for sure… 2049 is never going to be long enough away to see the world of the new Blade Runner movie come to fruition: so I look forward to ironically buying that T-shirt too (assuming I make it to 88!). But I digress.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.