Search
Search results
Kyera (8 KP) rated The Young Elites in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Despite the fact that I found the main character disagreeable - the premise was enjoyable. Initially, Adelina is very dark and unrelatable. She relishes pain and fear, as a result, I don't have sympathy for her character. Even though her father treated her abysmally her entire life, that treatment only seemed to nurture the darkness inside her. It did not create it. The darkness is all her own.
The only time I truly felt her humanity was when she was with the kind Gemma. It is in those moments she allows herself to feel. even concern for her sister seems forced, like familial obligation rather than a love. Her concern is usually accompanied with ill thoughts and blackened memories towards her sister.
Raffaele and Gemma are the most human of the characters and more likeable than the rest. Dante's main role is to antagonize. Enzo's role is to function as a romantic interest and future savior of the realm. The Windwalker, Lucent, and the Architect, Michel, serve more as background pieces than fully developed characters. Obviously, this is an over=simplification of their roles but it helps to illustrate the weaknesses in character development in the book. Over the course of the novel, the reader is given small glimpses into the character or their backstory but it is insufficient as these are her main and supporting characters for which the book is titled. The Young Elites.
The world the author builds draws you in with its unique holidays, three moons, elegant dress and giant rays that swim through the sky. The elaborate and opulent headquarters (Fortunata Court) of the Dagger Society rise in your mind surrounded by towers, merchants and Inquisitors. Stylistically, the world is reminiscent of Renaissance Italy with its gondolas, dress and canals that might draw you in like the world of Assassin's Creed.
During the course of the novel, we watch as Adelina trains her abilities and before long she joins the Daggers on a mission. She also seems to adopt more humanity as the book progresses which makes her a slightly more appealing character - but she is unable to hold onto that ray of light for long before succumbing to the festering darkness within. (Leaving the reader just as unsympathetic as before.)
She would be more likeable if she didn't welcome that darkness and unless her character arc leads her to light and love, changing her affinities, I have no emotional stake in her well-being. I understand that the author wants to write a dark character, but I personally just don't have an emotional stake in the outcome of this book because I don't particularly identify with any of her characters. Without redeeming qualities, you cannot justify or form an attachment to the character (especially because she is the main character). I'm sure others would like her character, and she is certainly an interesting character, but I prefer a lead who is flawed but inherently good. Perhaps an anti-hero but not the villain.
Growing up unloved, she quickly falls in with the Daggers but questions their motivation and is willing to betray them with the slightest provocation. In her mind, no one could possibly just be kind. They must have an agenda or be using her in some fashion. She is easily manipulated and swayed. Whether she follows through with her vengeance, betrays or redeems is something you must discover by reading the book yourself. Will Adelina redeems herself or succumb to the darkness?
I'm intrigued by the premise and the characters, despite the critical parts of my review. As such, I look forward to seeing where this series goes. I would definitely recommend it to YA fans who enjoy rich worlds that aren't modern or people with special abilities.
The only time I truly felt her humanity was when she was with the kind Gemma. It is in those moments she allows herself to feel. even concern for her sister seems forced, like familial obligation rather than a love. Her concern is usually accompanied with ill thoughts and blackened memories towards her sister.
Raffaele and Gemma are the most human of the characters and more likeable than the rest. Dante's main role is to antagonize. Enzo's role is to function as a romantic interest and future savior of the realm. The Windwalker, Lucent, and the Architect, Michel, serve more as background pieces than fully developed characters. Obviously, this is an over=simplification of their roles but it helps to illustrate the weaknesses in character development in the book. Over the course of the novel, the reader is given small glimpses into the character or their backstory but it is insufficient as these are her main and supporting characters for which the book is titled. The Young Elites.
The world the author builds draws you in with its unique holidays, three moons, elegant dress and giant rays that swim through the sky. The elaborate and opulent headquarters (Fortunata Court) of the Dagger Society rise in your mind surrounded by towers, merchants and Inquisitors. Stylistically, the world is reminiscent of Renaissance Italy with its gondolas, dress and canals that might draw you in like the world of Assassin's Creed.
During the course of the novel, we watch as Adelina trains her abilities and before long she joins the Daggers on a mission. She also seems to adopt more humanity as the book progresses which makes her a slightly more appealing character - but she is unable to hold onto that ray of light for long before succumbing to the festering darkness within. (Leaving the reader just as unsympathetic as before.)
She would be more likeable if she didn't welcome that darkness and unless her character arc leads her to light and love, changing her affinities, I have no emotional stake in her well-being. I understand that the author wants to write a dark character, but I personally just don't have an emotional stake in the outcome of this book because I don't particularly identify with any of her characters. Without redeeming qualities, you cannot justify or form an attachment to the character (especially because she is the main character). I'm sure others would like her character, and she is certainly an interesting character, but I prefer a lead who is flawed but inherently good. Perhaps an anti-hero but not the villain.
Growing up unloved, she quickly falls in with the Daggers but questions their motivation and is willing to betray them with the slightest provocation. In her mind, no one could possibly just be kind. They must have an agenda or be using her in some fashion. She is easily manipulated and swayed. Whether she follows through with her vengeance, betrays or redeems is something you must discover by reading the book yourself. Will Adelina redeems herself or succumb to the darkness?
I'm intrigued by the premise and the characters, despite the critical parts of my review. As such, I look forward to seeing where this series goes. I would definitely recommend it to YA fans who enjoy rich worlds that aren't modern or people with special abilities.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
It might sound like we’re damning Terminator: Dark Fate with faint praise by declaring it the best Terminator sequel since T2, however that seems to be the way many Hollywood franchises are going nowadays.
After all, last year’s Halloween sequel was declared the best one yet simply because it retconned the events of its mostly dreadful predecessors and blasted them out of existence. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom was declared (by us anyway) the very best sequel the franchise has ever gotten, but The Lost World and Jurassic Park III were hardly critical darlings.
The similarities between the Terminator and Jurassic franchises don’t end there though. You see, in an effort to reboot the flagging sci-fi series, Deadpool director Tim Miller has been brought in with the legend that is James Cameron returning to the franchise in a producing role, similar to how Steven Spielberg still produces the Jurassic movies to this day.
Yes, it appears that ignoring poor sequels allows film-makers to go back to the good old days, rather than trying to shoehorn poor sequel after poor sequel until audiences stop turning up at the cinema. That’s what has happened with the Terminator franchise. Following James Cameron’s incredible first two films, the sequels that followed ranged from dreadful to downright shambolic. But is Dark Fate actually good? Or just better than what came before it?
Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton returning to the role that defined her career) and a hybrid cyborg human, Grace (Mackenzie Davis) must protect a young girl (Natalia Reyes) from a newly modified liquid Terminator from the future.
Seeing Linda Hamilton return to such an iconic role after almost 30 years is a real highlight over the course of the film and she slots back into Sarah Connor’s shoes particularly well. She gets a few clunky one-liners but manages to stop them from sounding too ridiculous.
Elsewhere, Mackenzie Davis is absolutely cracking as Grace, a human-cyborg sent from the future. She’s full of heart and the script allows her to develop more of a personality than we’re used to from this franchise. Grace is a nicely fleshed out character with enough backstory to allow the audience to care for wellbeing.
Of course, Terminator fans are here to see Arnie and although his screen time is more limited than we’d like, it’s nice to see both him and Hamilton squaring up against each other again. We won’t spoil the plot devices used to bring about his return to the series, but they’re very well integrated and don’t feel as clunky as you might expect.
Set piece after set piece after set piece is thrown at the audience… but each one is so inventive that the probability of you getting bored is very slim indeed
Unfortunately, Natalia Reyes’ Dani is a little more wooden compared to her on-screen co-stars. There’s nothing particularly wrong with her character, but she’s merely there as a plot device and doesn’t really get to do much. It’s no easy feat to go up against Sarah Connor and the T-800 and while she tries her best, she falls a little short.
When it comes to action, Dark Fate pulls no punches. Set piece after set piece after set piece is thrown at the audience in an almost Fast & Furious-like way, but each one is so inventive that the probability of you getting bored is very slim indeed. The film starts with a very nicely choreographed chase on a freeway, culminating in a tense showdown at a power plant.
Dotted in between these rollercoaster moments however are some touching moments and well-timed comedy. While not on a level with Miller’s Deadpool, there are a couple of instances that raised a chuckle from the audience, though most of them involved Arnold Schwarzenegger and his deadpan line delivery.
Terminator: Dark Fate - Official Trailer (2019) - Paramount Pictures - YouTube
The CGI is mostly successful, though the lack of practical effects like those we saw in the film’s predecessors does lend an unnaturally glossy and artificial look to not only the Terminators themselves, but some of the landscapes. This is a bit of a shame as CGI body doubles are all too evident from time-to-time, but never does it pull you out of the film completely.
Overall, Terminator: Dark Fate is indeed the best sequel since T2. This is a film that successfully reboots a franchise that had been flagging for decades and is one of the year’s best action flicks. Not only does it bring back two of cinema’s most iconic characters, it places them in a film which is nicely shot, reasonably well-written and absolutely thrilling from start to finish. Now, if only the same winning formula could be applied to the Alien series, James Cameron may able to sleep soundly at night.
After all, last year’s Halloween sequel was declared the best one yet simply because it retconned the events of its mostly dreadful predecessors and blasted them out of existence. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom was declared (by us anyway) the very best sequel the franchise has ever gotten, but The Lost World and Jurassic Park III were hardly critical darlings.
The similarities between the Terminator and Jurassic franchises don’t end there though. You see, in an effort to reboot the flagging sci-fi series, Deadpool director Tim Miller has been brought in with the legend that is James Cameron returning to the franchise in a producing role, similar to how Steven Spielberg still produces the Jurassic movies to this day.
Yes, it appears that ignoring poor sequels allows film-makers to go back to the good old days, rather than trying to shoehorn poor sequel after poor sequel until audiences stop turning up at the cinema. That’s what has happened with the Terminator franchise. Following James Cameron’s incredible first two films, the sequels that followed ranged from dreadful to downright shambolic. But is Dark Fate actually good? Or just better than what came before it?
Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton returning to the role that defined her career) and a hybrid cyborg human, Grace (Mackenzie Davis) must protect a young girl (Natalia Reyes) from a newly modified liquid Terminator from the future.
Seeing Linda Hamilton return to such an iconic role after almost 30 years is a real highlight over the course of the film and she slots back into Sarah Connor’s shoes particularly well. She gets a few clunky one-liners but manages to stop them from sounding too ridiculous.
Elsewhere, Mackenzie Davis is absolutely cracking as Grace, a human-cyborg sent from the future. She’s full of heart and the script allows her to develop more of a personality than we’re used to from this franchise. Grace is a nicely fleshed out character with enough backstory to allow the audience to care for wellbeing.
Of course, Terminator fans are here to see Arnie and although his screen time is more limited than we’d like, it’s nice to see both him and Hamilton squaring up against each other again. We won’t spoil the plot devices used to bring about his return to the series, but they’re very well integrated and don’t feel as clunky as you might expect.
Set piece after set piece after set piece is thrown at the audience… but each one is so inventive that the probability of you getting bored is very slim indeed
Unfortunately, Natalia Reyes’ Dani is a little more wooden compared to her on-screen co-stars. There’s nothing particularly wrong with her character, but she’s merely there as a plot device and doesn’t really get to do much. It’s no easy feat to go up against Sarah Connor and the T-800 and while she tries her best, she falls a little short.
When it comes to action, Dark Fate pulls no punches. Set piece after set piece after set piece is thrown at the audience in an almost Fast & Furious-like way, but each one is so inventive that the probability of you getting bored is very slim indeed. The film starts with a very nicely choreographed chase on a freeway, culminating in a tense showdown at a power plant.
Dotted in between these rollercoaster moments however are some touching moments and well-timed comedy. While not on a level with Miller’s Deadpool, there are a couple of instances that raised a chuckle from the audience, though most of them involved Arnold Schwarzenegger and his deadpan line delivery.
Terminator: Dark Fate - Official Trailer (2019) - Paramount Pictures - YouTube
The CGI is mostly successful, though the lack of practical effects like those we saw in the film’s predecessors does lend an unnaturally glossy and artificial look to not only the Terminators themselves, but some of the landscapes. This is a bit of a shame as CGI body doubles are all too evident from time-to-time, but never does it pull you out of the film completely.
Overall, Terminator: Dark Fate is indeed the best sequel since T2. This is a film that successfully reboots a franchise that had been flagging for decades and is one of the year’s best action flicks. Not only does it bring back two of cinema’s most iconic characters, it places them in a film which is nicely shot, reasonably well-written and absolutely thrilling from start to finish. Now, if only the same winning formula could be applied to the Alien series, James Cameron may able to sleep soundly at night.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
As average as you can get
The lacklustre box-office performance of Jack Reacher in 2012 seemed to scupper plans for the film to become the first in a new Tom Cruise-led action franchise to rival the likes of Mission Impossible and its mixed critical response only added to its woes.
Fast forward four years and we’ve got the sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is Jack Reacher: Never Go Back the improvement that was so sorely needed and could it act as a catalyst to turn this popular novel series into a proper film franchise?
Investigator Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) springs into action after the arrest of Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), an Army major accused of treason. Suspecting foul play, Jack embarks on a mission to prove that the head of his old unit is innocent. After crossing paths with the law, Reacher must now go on the lam to uncover the truth behind a major government conspiracy that involves the death of U.S. soldiers.
Director Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai) shoots the action realistically but even a commanding turn from Tom Cruise can’t save a bland script, so-so special effects and a plot so unoriginal, it would be easy to swap out Cruise for Liam Neeson and call it Taken 4. Or Matt Damon and label it Bourne 6? You get where I’m going with this, right?
It’s all been done so many times before and there are no twists and turns or anything remotely unusual to give the film a USP. Instead, the scriptwriters, of which there are three here, force our two central characters into a game of cat and mouse so lazy, the bad guys show up literally minutes after our heroes, with no explanation whatsoever of how they came to be in the vicinity.
Surely it wouldn’t have been difficult to add some extra exposition into the script. Cyborg baddies with GPS tracking systems implanted into their brains perhaps? I’ll save that idea for another day.
Nevertheless, the action is confidently choreographed with a Halloween parade finale being utilised rather well and Cruise plays the titular role well, despite being 54 this year. However, the supporting cast are drowned out by some horrendous dialogue and a story that doesn’t really know what to do with anyone apart from Jack Reacher himself.
And that really is about it. Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is the most satisfactory film of the year by some margin. It’s not terrible by any means and it certainly isn’t fantastic, but it makes for a passable trip to the cinema, though one that you’ll probably have forgotten about by the time you get to your front door. It’s just that middle of the road.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/21/as-average-as-you-can-get-jack-reacher-never-go-back-review/
Fast forward four years and we’ve got the sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is Jack Reacher: Never Go Back the improvement that was so sorely needed and could it act as a catalyst to turn this popular novel series into a proper film franchise?
Investigator Jack Reacher (Tom Cruise) springs into action after the arrest of Susan Turner (Cobie Smulders), an Army major accused of treason. Suspecting foul play, Jack embarks on a mission to prove that the head of his old unit is innocent. After crossing paths with the law, Reacher must now go on the lam to uncover the truth behind a major government conspiracy that involves the death of U.S. soldiers.
Director Edward Zwick (Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai) shoots the action realistically but even a commanding turn from Tom Cruise can’t save a bland script, so-so special effects and a plot so unoriginal, it would be easy to swap out Cruise for Liam Neeson and call it Taken 4. Or Matt Damon and label it Bourne 6? You get where I’m going with this, right?
It’s all been done so many times before and there are no twists and turns or anything remotely unusual to give the film a USP. Instead, the scriptwriters, of which there are three here, force our two central characters into a game of cat and mouse so lazy, the bad guys show up literally minutes after our heroes, with no explanation whatsoever of how they came to be in the vicinity.
Surely it wouldn’t have been difficult to add some extra exposition into the script. Cyborg baddies with GPS tracking systems implanted into their brains perhaps? I’ll save that idea for another day.
Nevertheless, the action is confidently choreographed with a Halloween parade finale being utilised rather well and Cruise plays the titular role well, despite being 54 this year. However, the supporting cast are drowned out by some horrendous dialogue and a story that doesn’t really know what to do with anyone apart from Jack Reacher himself.
And that really is about it. Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is the most satisfactory film of the year by some margin. It’s not terrible by any means and it certainly isn’t fantastic, but it makes for a passable trip to the cinema, though one that you’ll probably have forgotten about by the time you get to your front door. It’s just that middle of the road.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/21/as-average-as-you-can-get-jack-reacher-never-go-back-review/
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Jun 30, 2019
" With great power comes great responsibility"
One of the first movies to pave the groundwork for modern superhero flicks, Spider-Man is an incredibly fun & endlessly entertaining action-adventure that brings its web-slinging hero to life on the silver screen in a truly fascinating manner after spending nearly a quarter of a century in development hell and, with its record-breaking box office performance, acts as a precursor to an era when superheroes would dominate the summer box-office.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
I’ve never left the cinema more unnerved than I did after watching Todd Phillips’ first foray in the superhero genre. Joker is a frequently violent, often grotesque and regularly intense portrayal of the iconic character that’s already receiving praise and backlash in equal measure from those in the critic community.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Spy (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Comedic Gold
From the brilliant Paul Feig, director of the ridiculously funny Bridesmaids and Sandra Bullock’s laugh-a-minute The Heat comes the latest in the secret agent comedy film, Spy. But does this film, fronted by the ever-popular Melissa McCarthy have what it takes to play with the big boys in the genre?
Spy follows the story of McCarthy’s Susan Cooper, a lonely CIA analyst suddenly thrust into the limelight as a secret agent tasked with tracking the whereabouts of a nuclear weapon after the rest of the agency’s operatives have their identities compromised.
After the success of Matthew Vaughn’s Kingsman: The Secret Service, released earlier this year, expectations of another spy comedy hit for 2015 were low to say the least, especially after the critical disaster that was Reese Witherspoon’s cop comedy Hot Pursuit.
However, Feig once again strikes gold with an exciting story, an all-star cast and some breath-taking scenery and action pieces. There’s no wonder he’s been tasked with directing the Ghostbusters reboot.
Jason Statham, Rose Byrne, Miranda Hart and Jude Law take their places in a film that not only has you on the edge of your seat more times than the majority of full-blown action movies, but also will have you laughing your head off.
The gags are relentless and on the whole, very funny with McCarthy continuing to be a dynamic presence like she has shown throughout the majority of her previous work. However, the surprising stand-out is Jason Statham as super spy Rick Ford.
We’ve all seen Statham play the tough action guy and his role in Spy is certainly no different. The difference comes with his ridiculously dry sense of humour – he is genuinely funny with his serious delivery and provides the film with its best moments.
Jude Law’s charismatic agent Fine, oblivious to McCarthy’s affections for him fails to make as much of an impact as Statham’s truly brilliant characterisation.
The film’s biggest weakness is in Miranda Hart however, who channels the same character that anyone familiar with her BBC One show will know all too well. Yes, she’s funny, but only because the script allows her to be – almost masking her well-worn persona somewhat.
Elsewhere, the locations are beautiful. From Paris to Budapest, Spy takes you on a tour of Europe and is unashamed of showing these tourist hot-spots in all their glory. Feig juxtaposes sweeping shots of Paris with intimate scenes in Budapest and the film’s occasional tonal shift also utilises this filming tactic well.
Moreover, the numerous action sequences are excellently choreographed. Feig has a real love for the spy genre and it shows. From the super slow-mo used so the audience knows what is going on, to the Shirley Bassey like theme song, nowhere is untouched in creating a viable spy movie, albeit a funny one.
Overall, so far, every film Paul Feig has touched has turned to gold. The Heat wasn’t as impressive as Bridesmaids but that is simply because of how fantastic the latter is. However, with Spy there is no denying that he is back on solid ground.
Melissa McCarthy is the perfect comedy actress to front a film like this and Jason Statham’s surprising comedic turn is absolutely marvellous. Despite a less than stellar performance from Miranda Hart, Spy is fun from beginning to end with numerous twists and turns along the way.
Settle down for the ride with some popcorn and you’ll have a fantastic time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/07/comedic-gold-spy-review/
Spy follows the story of McCarthy’s Susan Cooper, a lonely CIA analyst suddenly thrust into the limelight as a secret agent tasked with tracking the whereabouts of a nuclear weapon after the rest of the agency’s operatives have their identities compromised.
After the success of Matthew Vaughn’s Kingsman: The Secret Service, released earlier this year, expectations of another spy comedy hit for 2015 were low to say the least, especially after the critical disaster that was Reese Witherspoon’s cop comedy Hot Pursuit.
However, Feig once again strikes gold with an exciting story, an all-star cast and some breath-taking scenery and action pieces. There’s no wonder he’s been tasked with directing the Ghostbusters reboot.
Jason Statham, Rose Byrne, Miranda Hart and Jude Law take their places in a film that not only has you on the edge of your seat more times than the majority of full-blown action movies, but also will have you laughing your head off.
The gags are relentless and on the whole, very funny with McCarthy continuing to be a dynamic presence like she has shown throughout the majority of her previous work. However, the surprising stand-out is Jason Statham as super spy Rick Ford.
We’ve all seen Statham play the tough action guy and his role in Spy is certainly no different. The difference comes with his ridiculously dry sense of humour – he is genuinely funny with his serious delivery and provides the film with its best moments.
Jude Law’s charismatic agent Fine, oblivious to McCarthy’s affections for him fails to make as much of an impact as Statham’s truly brilliant characterisation.
The film’s biggest weakness is in Miranda Hart however, who channels the same character that anyone familiar with her BBC One show will know all too well. Yes, she’s funny, but only because the script allows her to be – almost masking her well-worn persona somewhat.
Elsewhere, the locations are beautiful. From Paris to Budapest, Spy takes you on a tour of Europe and is unashamed of showing these tourist hot-spots in all their glory. Feig juxtaposes sweeping shots of Paris with intimate scenes in Budapest and the film’s occasional tonal shift also utilises this filming tactic well.
Moreover, the numerous action sequences are excellently choreographed. Feig has a real love for the spy genre and it shows. From the super slow-mo used so the audience knows what is going on, to the Shirley Bassey like theme song, nowhere is untouched in creating a viable spy movie, albeit a funny one.
Overall, so far, every film Paul Feig has touched has turned to gold. The Heat wasn’t as impressive as Bridesmaids but that is simply because of how fantastic the latter is. However, with Spy there is no denying that he is back on solid ground.
Melissa McCarthy is the perfect comedy actress to front a film like this and Jason Statham’s surprising comedic turn is absolutely marvellous. Despite a less than stellar performance from Miranda Hart, Spy is fun from beginning to end with numerous twists and turns along the way.
Settle down for the ride with some popcorn and you’ll have a fantastic time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/07/comedic-gold-spy-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Fame and fortune and everything that goes with it”.
Sometimes a trailer generates a bit of a buzz of excitement with a cinema audience and the first showings of the trailer for “Bohemian Rhapsody” was a case in point. But would the film live up to the potential?
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Part of Your World in Books
Aug 16, 2019
Review by Disney Bookworm
Contains spoilers, click to show
Part of Your World is based five years after Ursula defeats Ariel, yes you heard me right! The whole miraculous, shiny magic being released from the shell, the little mermaid regaining her voice, the whole harpoon, giant octopus, child scarring scene…never happened!
In this twisted tale Ursula succeeded in tricking Eric into marrying Vanessa; she now rules the Kingdom, with Eric remaining under Ursula’s spell and pretty much clueless to his wife’s evil tendencies. Conversely Ariel is Queen of the Sea, ruling Atlantica in her father’s absence. Oh yeah! Spoiler! Ursula still has Triton in her slimy grasp as well.
NB: Just for clarification this isn’t really a spoiler as you find this out on page 20- please don’t send in complaints.
The book includes all of your favourite characters from the classic 1989 movie: Scuttle, Sebastian, Flounder and even Grimsby and Carlotta! Liz Braswell does such a good job in rejuvenating these characters and reminding us why we loved them in the first place. There wasn’t enough Flounder for my liking but a lot of the story takes place above ground so I can’t really complain- maybe he needs his own tale?
The star of the book has to be Ariel though, she is the Little Mermaid after all…or is she? Braswell’s character is much more mature and tougher than the Little Mermaid we remember. After living as a mute Queen for 5 years Ariel has lost the naïve, childish part of her personality and has become a ruler consumed by guilt and melancholy. Nevertheless, this withdrawal into herself has not dampened her courage and when she learns King Triton may still be alive, she immediately begins her quest to save her father. I’m also relieved to say that I got a very sassy and sarcastic vibe from Ariel at points in the book- a woman after my own heart!
Eric too is not the suave, smouldering-before-it-was-cool character he was back in the day. Instead, overpowered by Ursula’s magic, he is distant and confused: still loved by his people but now labelled as “mad”. He loses himself in music, with his latest opera telling a familiar tale that the reader will surely recognise. Can he regain his memory in time to rescue his kingdom from his wife? Will he and Ariel meet again? Can the new Queen of the Sea rescue Triton or is Ursula just too powerful now?
The original characters of The Little Mermaid are welcomed with open arms into this story and, despite the notable differences in our two protagonists, the remaining characters are comforting and familiar. Braswell also takes the opportunity to introduce us to new characters: Jona the gull, provides quite a modern outlook for a “Disney” character, questioning the world around her with a critical eye. Even background characters such as an hilarious old apple vendor and Vareet, a mute servant girl (whom I was sure was going to have a bigger role than she did) do not fade into the pages. Quite the opposite, thanks to the book’s detail, humour and intrigue, these characters will stay with us for just as long as the story itself.
In summary, Liz Braswell’s novel draws us in hook, line and sinker. Part of Your World is impossible to put down. You will find yourself disparaging Ariel’s former lovestruck personality along with her, experiencing the tension and danger associated with Flotsam and Jetsam and exploring Eric’s kingdom through Braswell’s detailed storytelling.
There’s probably a google-defined order to read the twisted tales in but frankly I don’t care. Try this one first- you won’t regret it!
Written by The Disney Bookworm:
https://disneybookworm.home.blog/2019/04/28/part-of-your-world-a-twisted-tale-by-liz-braswell/
In this twisted tale Ursula succeeded in tricking Eric into marrying Vanessa; she now rules the Kingdom, with Eric remaining under Ursula’s spell and pretty much clueless to his wife’s evil tendencies. Conversely Ariel is Queen of the Sea, ruling Atlantica in her father’s absence. Oh yeah! Spoiler! Ursula still has Triton in her slimy grasp as well.
NB: Just for clarification this isn’t really a spoiler as you find this out on page 20- please don’t send in complaints.
The book includes all of your favourite characters from the classic 1989 movie: Scuttle, Sebastian, Flounder and even Grimsby and Carlotta! Liz Braswell does such a good job in rejuvenating these characters and reminding us why we loved them in the first place. There wasn’t enough Flounder for my liking but a lot of the story takes place above ground so I can’t really complain- maybe he needs his own tale?
The star of the book has to be Ariel though, she is the Little Mermaid after all…or is she? Braswell’s character is much more mature and tougher than the Little Mermaid we remember. After living as a mute Queen for 5 years Ariel has lost the naïve, childish part of her personality and has become a ruler consumed by guilt and melancholy. Nevertheless, this withdrawal into herself has not dampened her courage and when she learns King Triton may still be alive, she immediately begins her quest to save her father. I’m also relieved to say that I got a very sassy and sarcastic vibe from Ariel at points in the book- a woman after my own heart!
Eric too is not the suave, smouldering-before-it-was-cool character he was back in the day. Instead, overpowered by Ursula’s magic, he is distant and confused: still loved by his people but now labelled as “mad”. He loses himself in music, with his latest opera telling a familiar tale that the reader will surely recognise. Can he regain his memory in time to rescue his kingdom from his wife? Will he and Ariel meet again? Can the new Queen of the Sea rescue Triton or is Ursula just too powerful now?
The original characters of The Little Mermaid are welcomed with open arms into this story and, despite the notable differences in our two protagonists, the remaining characters are comforting and familiar. Braswell also takes the opportunity to introduce us to new characters: Jona the gull, provides quite a modern outlook for a “Disney” character, questioning the world around her with a critical eye. Even background characters such as an hilarious old apple vendor and Vareet, a mute servant girl (whom I was sure was going to have a bigger role than she did) do not fade into the pages. Quite the opposite, thanks to the book’s detail, humour and intrigue, these characters will stay with us for just as long as the story itself.
In summary, Liz Braswell’s novel draws us in hook, line and sinker. Part of Your World is impossible to put down. You will find yourself disparaging Ariel’s former lovestruck personality along with her, experiencing the tension and danger associated with Flotsam and Jetsam and exploring Eric’s kingdom through Braswell’s detailed storytelling.
There’s probably a google-defined order to read the twisted tales in but frankly I don’t care. Try this one first- you won’t regret it!
Written by The Disney Bookworm:
https://disneybookworm.home.blog/2019/04/28/part-of-your-world-a-twisted-tale-by-liz-braswell/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Beasts of No Nation (2015) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 9, 2020)
As I may have mentioned, a lot of my film viewing over the last wee while has been part of a project that hopes to be called 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential films of the new millennium – which utilises the Decinemal system you will see at the bottom of each of my reviews. It aims to judge each film objectively with a score out of 10 over 10 categories, to give an overall rating out of 100.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Wolverine (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In 2009, we were treated to the origin story for one of Marvel’s most beloved characters: The Wolverine. Enthusiasm for the story turned to discord and malcontent for most, but if you had the ability to look past the inadequacies found in most Marvel silver-screen adaptations (as I did), then at least you would have enjoyed seeing the comic come to life.
Here in 2013, Hugh Jackman reprises his role for the 6th time, making his way to Japan to bring about one of the community’s favorite portions of the mythos: the way of the samurai, Muriko, and the Silver Samurai.
The story opens with the bombing of Nagasaki, and Logan’s survival of the atrocity. He saves a Japanese soldier from suicide, and then from the Atomic Bomb.
Fast forward to the present and we have a broken mountain man that was once Logan (Jackman). He lives in the hills, away from people, because he no longer wants to be a soldier. His immortality has become a curse.
After a rousing row with some local hunters, a representative for Yashida (the aforementioned Japanese soldier) talks Logan into going back to Japan to pay his respects to a dying man.
The story spins away from there on a turbulent ride that is equal parts drama and action.
Let’s get to my thoughts.
—————The good ———————-
The cinematography, script, acting, and editing was top-notch. The sets, costumes, effects, stunts and fight scenes were all pleasurably executed. This was a very well-made movie.
—————-The bad ————————
The plot holes were too numerous to be anything but amazingly distracting. Without giving too much away, here are just a few:
During a ceremony, in broad day light, on a huge roof, one of the main secondary characters is lurking. With as many people and security, this was HIGHLY implausible. Laughable, at best.
Ninjas are not a real thing, and they never were. They were a fable; a story told without any factual, historical basis, and their presence cheapened the film.
When the A-bomb was dropped, those who survived the actual explosion still died to the radiation within a certain range. There is no way Yashida would have survived Nagasaki the way the event was portrayed in the film.
At some point, Wolverine loses his ability to heal. It’s never clear if his regenerative powers are fully gone or just suppressed, but he can’t heal well enough to stop bleeding. With this in mind, his survival of so many shots to the body is extremely questionable.
On that same note: if he can’t heal, how did the holes made by the blades extruding from his hands heal up? After every scene in which the blades come out, his hands remain free of blood or marks.
Wolverine was clearly killing people with his claws, which I liked, but there should have been far more limb and torso severing, given how sharp his adamantium blades are and how overwhelmingly strong he is supposed to be.
The Wolverine character has an unmatched sense of smell, but it was never used in the movie, not even once. The opportunity presented itself multiple times.
These are just a few examples, and there were many more jarring discrepancies. There were so many that it detracted from the movie in an unforgivable way. Even this was totally separate from the comic-to-silver-screen transition, for which those remarks are better left to someone more learned in the comic realm.
The part I enjoyed the most came during the last 30 seconds of the film, as part of the credits. It sets up a future film. Enjoy.
All in all, The Wolverine was great. That said, if you have a critical eye, like myself, you will find many faults.
Here in 2013, Hugh Jackman reprises his role for the 6th time, making his way to Japan to bring about one of the community’s favorite portions of the mythos: the way of the samurai, Muriko, and the Silver Samurai.
The story opens with the bombing of Nagasaki, and Logan’s survival of the atrocity. He saves a Japanese soldier from suicide, and then from the Atomic Bomb.
Fast forward to the present and we have a broken mountain man that was once Logan (Jackman). He lives in the hills, away from people, because he no longer wants to be a soldier. His immortality has become a curse.
After a rousing row with some local hunters, a representative for Yashida (the aforementioned Japanese soldier) talks Logan into going back to Japan to pay his respects to a dying man.
The story spins away from there on a turbulent ride that is equal parts drama and action.
Let’s get to my thoughts.
—————The good ———————-
The cinematography, script, acting, and editing was top-notch. The sets, costumes, effects, stunts and fight scenes were all pleasurably executed. This was a very well-made movie.
—————-The bad ————————
The plot holes were too numerous to be anything but amazingly distracting. Without giving too much away, here are just a few:
During a ceremony, in broad day light, on a huge roof, one of the main secondary characters is lurking. With as many people and security, this was HIGHLY implausible. Laughable, at best.
Ninjas are not a real thing, and they never were. They were a fable; a story told without any factual, historical basis, and their presence cheapened the film.
When the A-bomb was dropped, those who survived the actual explosion still died to the radiation within a certain range. There is no way Yashida would have survived Nagasaki the way the event was portrayed in the film.
At some point, Wolverine loses his ability to heal. It’s never clear if his regenerative powers are fully gone or just suppressed, but he can’t heal well enough to stop bleeding. With this in mind, his survival of so many shots to the body is extremely questionable.
On that same note: if he can’t heal, how did the holes made by the blades extruding from his hands heal up? After every scene in which the blades come out, his hands remain free of blood or marks.
Wolverine was clearly killing people with his claws, which I liked, but there should have been far more limb and torso severing, given how sharp his adamantium blades are and how overwhelmingly strong he is supposed to be.
The Wolverine character has an unmatched sense of smell, but it was never used in the movie, not even once. The opportunity presented itself multiple times.
These are just a few examples, and there were many more jarring discrepancies. There were so many that it detracted from the movie in an unforgivable way. Even this was totally separate from the comic-to-silver-screen transition, for which those remarks are better left to someone more learned in the comic realm.
The part I enjoyed the most came during the last 30 seconds of the film, as part of the credits. It sets up a future film. Enjoy.
All in all, The Wolverine was great. That said, if you have a critical eye, like myself, you will find many faults.