Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Supernova (2020) in Movies
Jun 24, 2021
Tucci and Firth - an acting masterclass (1 more)
A slow and very moving study of a difficult subject
“You’re not supposed to mourn someone before they die.”
Sam (Colin Firth) is a famous concert pianist. Tusker (Stanley Tucci) a famous author. But Tusker has Alzheimer's, and is starting to go downhill. The loving couple take their battered motorhome on a last great adventure round England's Lake District, taking in a visit with Sam's sister Lil while there.
Positives:
- "Love is a many splendored thing" as the song goes, and seldom has it been expressed so poignantly as in "Supernova". Harry Macqueen's script builds up a truly loving relationship between the two men. Any homophobes should be strapped into chairs and forced to watch this movie: perhaps that would cause some semblance of understanding to emerge in their petrified brains. (Who am I kidding?)
- Supporting the story brilliantly are Colin Firth and Stanley Tucci. Tucci has been in so many great movies over the years that it's no surprise to me that his acting moved me to tears. But when I think of Colin Firth (Hampshire's own! He went to my daughter's college!) my mind tends to skip over his dramatic roles in films like "The King's Speech" and "A Single Man". Instead, I tend to dwell on his lighter, fluffier roles, like "Bridget Jones" and "Mamma Mia". As such, I forget what a truly great actor he is. And here, he hits it out of the park! With all the Covid release confusion, I'm not sure whether "Supernova" is up for awards next year, or whether it has been cruelly overlooked from last year's awards. I truly hope it's the former, since both men are at the peak of their craft here.
- The cinematography by Dick Pope is beautiful. To be fair, you could put a Super 8 camera in the Lake District on a sunny day and it would look great. But the camera work here makes it look its best.
Negatives:
- Not really a negative for me, but it's about as far away from an "action film" as you can get. "Fast and Furious 9" is showing next door! This is an extremely slow, character-led piece that won't be for everyone.
- I wasn't totally convinced by the symptoms shown. Early in the film, Tusker wanders off in a daze, but seems comparatively compos mentis for most of the rest of the film. Perhaps this is just my ignorance of the randomness and unpredictability of the disease (anyone in the know - please enlighten me).
Summary Thoughts on "Supernova": As is often the way with cinema, genre films can come along like London buses. First this month we had Anthony Hopkin's Oscar-winning turn as a dementia sufferer in "The Father", and now "Supernova" appears. This takes a different approach to the subject. Not as flashy or clever. But no less effective at portraying the tragedy that this wretched disease wreaks with relationships, often making them a living hell.
Having straight actors play gay characters will no doubt provoke the usual outcry from the cancel culture. But if it's good acting - and it is a masterclass from the two leads in my book - such that you BELIEVE the story, then that's the whole point of the craft.
Like "The Father", this is a tough watch. I felt pretty well emotionally wrung-out by the end of it. But, it was well worth the wait in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "One Mann's Movies" review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/supernova-youre-not-supposed-to-mourn-someone-before-they-die/. Thanks.)
Positives:
- "Love is a many splendored thing" as the song goes, and seldom has it been expressed so poignantly as in "Supernova". Harry Macqueen's script builds up a truly loving relationship between the two men. Any homophobes should be strapped into chairs and forced to watch this movie: perhaps that would cause some semblance of understanding to emerge in their petrified brains. (Who am I kidding?)
- Supporting the story brilliantly are Colin Firth and Stanley Tucci. Tucci has been in so many great movies over the years that it's no surprise to me that his acting moved me to tears. But when I think of Colin Firth (Hampshire's own! He went to my daughter's college!) my mind tends to skip over his dramatic roles in films like "The King's Speech" and "A Single Man". Instead, I tend to dwell on his lighter, fluffier roles, like "Bridget Jones" and "Mamma Mia". As such, I forget what a truly great actor he is. And here, he hits it out of the park! With all the Covid release confusion, I'm not sure whether "Supernova" is up for awards next year, or whether it has been cruelly overlooked from last year's awards. I truly hope it's the former, since both men are at the peak of their craft here.
- The cinematography by Dick Pope is beautiful. To be fair, you could put a Super 8 camera in the Lake District on a sunny day and it would look great. But the camera work here makes it look its best.
Negatives:
- Not really a negative for me, but it's about as far away from an "action film" as you can get. "Fast and Furious 9" is showing next door! This is an extremely slow, character-led piece that won't be for everyone.
- I wasn't totally convinced by the symptoms shown. Early in the film, Tusker wanders off in a daze, but seems comparatively compos mentis for most of the rest of the film. Perhaps this is just my ignorance of the randomness and unpredictability of the disease (anyone in the know - please enlighten me).
Summary Thoughts on "Supernova": As is often the way with cinema, genre films can come along like London buses. First this month we had Anthony Hopkin's Oscar-winning turn as a dementia sufferer in "The Father", and now "Supernova" appears. This takes a different approach to the subject. Not as flashy or clever. But no less effective at portraying the tragedy that this wretched disease wreaks with relationships, often making them a living hell.
Having straight actors play gay characters will no doubt provoke the usual outcry from the cancel culture. But if it's good acting - and it is a masterclass from the two leads in my book - such that you BELIEVE the story, then that's the whole point of the craft.
Like "The Father", this is a tough watch. I felt pretty well emotionally wrung-out by the end of it. But, it was well worth the wait in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "One Mann's Movies" review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/supernova-youre-not-supposed-to-mourn-someone-before-they-die/. Thanks.)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Virtual game nights over Zoom have been a big part of many lockdown experiences, so, if you haven’t already, check out this fun, disposable comedy starring Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams. The two ever reliable leads make this 100 minute romp something worth doing, pitched as it is to tickle you on a superficial level and then leave you alone. Not one minute of meaningful plot or artistic message exists here; this is frat house tomfoolery for the now middle aged mainstream and then a bow to the crowd.
Anyone who has hosted, or been a guest at a dedicated game night will instantly relate to recognisable moments of cringe, such as the person who takes it all far too seriously and must win at all costs; the one who is far too dim to be true, and neither understands the rules nor knows the answers; the couple whose relationship is about to be ruined by how much they disagree; the guys who care much more about the booze, chat and music to care about the game; and the psycho that you didn’t really want to invite but is there in the mix anyway, giving the weirdest answers of all time and bringing down the mood. It’s all there!
When events take a canny twist and a planned fake murder mystery turns into a very real one, there is tons of fun to be had watching the main pair misjudge the amount of danger they are in, believing it all to still be a game. Bateman phones in his usual laconic likeable deadpan schtick, hard to differentiate from his role in half a dozen other films where he plays the likeable everyman, but is never less than watchable – because that’s what he does. McAdams also delivers her ace card, with a guileless charm and sweetness that makes her permanently lovable. She also wins by a point or two on the best lines and laugh out loud moments. If I was keeping score, I’d say she wins this one.
As a couple, their chemistry works a treat and sustains the conceit well for most of the running time. It can feel at times like a bit of a one trick pony, however, and also pushes the boundaries of likability by having quite a mean heart in places, leaning on crass, puerile or macho humour when not entirely necessary – but I guess it knows its target audience and just goes full tilt at that goal.
For that reason, it wouldn’t be something I’d be showing the kids. This is adult humour, for adults – a concept that always makes me slightly uncomfortable, as it will inevitably involve gratuitous violence, nasty misogyny and token gross-outs: the mainstay of comedy films without actual jokes. Game Night just about gets away with it, however, by being smart enough and self-aware enough to know exactly where it sits, shrugging its shoulders and saying “this is what this is” take it or leave it. And I guess there will be as many people who don’t enjoy it as those who do.
Personally, I enjoy what Bateman and McAdams do best enough to play along and enjoy the ride. There is also a terrifically creepy, but note perfect turn from the increasingly reliable Jesse Plemmons, as the lonely neighbour, who steals all the funniest moments the film has to offer. See it for his performance and comic timing if for nothing else. It’s also nice to see Michael C. Hall of Dexter fame turn up for two minutes of mayhem – I don’t see enough of him these days.
In conclusion, neither a winner or a loser. Let’s call it a draw and reset the pieces.
Anyone who has hosted, or been a guest at a dedicated game night will instantly relate to recognisable moments of cringe, such as the person who takes it all far too seriously and must win at all costs; the one who is far too dim to be true, and neither understands the rules nor knows the answers; the couple whose relationship is about to be ruined by how much they disagree; the guys who care much more about the booze, chat and music to care about the game; and the psycho that you didn’t really want to invite but is there in the mix anyway, giving the weirdest answers of all time and bringing down the mood. It’s all there!
When events take a canny twist and a planned fake murder mystery turns into a very real one, there is tons of fun to be had watching the main pair misjudge the amount of danger they are in, believing it all to still be a game. Bateman phones in his usual laconic likeable deadpan schtick, hard to differentiate from his role in half a dozen other films where he plays the likeable everyman, but is never less than watchable – because that’s what he does. McAdams also delivers her ace card, with a guileless charm and sweetness that makes her permanently lovable. She also wins by a point or two on the best lines and laugh out loud moments. If I was keeping score, I’d say she wins this one.
As a couple, their chemistry works a treat and sustains the conceit well for most of the running time. It can feel at times like a bit of a one trick pony, however, and also pushes the boundaries of likability by having quite a mean heart in places, leaning on crass, puerile or macho humour when not entirely necessary – but I guess it knows its target audience and just goes full tilt at that goal.
For that reason, it wouldn’t be something I’d be showing the kids. This is adult humour, for adults – a concept that always makes me slightly uncomfortable, as it will inevitably involve gratuitous violence, nasty misogyny and token gross-outs: the mainstay of comedy films without actual jokes. Game Night just about gets away with it, however, by being smart enough and self-aware enough to know exactly where it sits, shrugging its shoulders and saying “this is what this is” take it or leave it. And I guess there will be as many people who don’t enjoy it as those who do.
Personally, I enjoy what Bateman and McAdams do best enough to play along and enjoy the ride. There is also a terrifically creepy, but note perfect turn from the increasingly reliable Jesse Plemmons, as the lonely neighbour, who steals all the funniest moments the film has to offer. See it for his performance and comic timing if for nothing else. It’s also nice to see Michael C. Hall of Dexter fame turn up for two minutes of mayhem – I don’t see enough of him these days.
In conclusion, neither a winner or a loser. Let’s call it a draw and reset the pieces.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Purge (2013) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
I wanted a 'Killer in masks/home invasion' and that's what I got but there is a lot going on it 'The Purge' :
1) We have the purge itself, a new political party has come in and started titular Purge, one night a year where any crime is legal (although the emphasis is on killing and, via subtext, rape). There are a few exceptions stated at the start of the film and, although it's not directly stated, it seems that minors are exempt, in that they can be targets but not actually participate in the killing.
2)The 'Boyfriend' subplot. This could have led to the main plot but seems to be there just to keep us off track at the beginning.
3) The bloody stranger - ok he's needed as he's the main McGuffin
4) The Freaks, Yes the film needs it's antagonists and it's sometimes good to throw in a red herring but we have; The Freaks, Henry (the boy friend), The Bloody stranger who is suspected as being dangerous when he first arrives, even Janes Sandin looks like he could be the antagonist when he is going to throw the stranger out of the house, then we have...
5) The neighbours - even from the start of the film there is something off about them.
6) Add all of this together with a lot of politics and you have a very layered film.
The first half of the film is mainly set up, setting up the idea of the purge and introducing the characters, there are a few shots of violence in the beginning but the film starts off slow. Then it explodes in violence.
Although the concept is the same, The Purge is a different beast to something like 'The Strangers', both films spend time building up to the the action but, when the action starts, the Purge is much faster paced, mainly because there are more 'hunters' and they have guns.
The Purge is also a very political film but it doesn't go down the 'rich vs poor' root that a lot of films do, this is mentioned a bit but only to back up the thinking behind some of those who partake in the event. The film shows two sides of the Purge and mentions two more, you have those that want to take part in the event and those (like the main family) who don't, the Sandin's just want to get through the night where as the 'Freaks' happily take part in it. It's also mentioned that there are those who can not protect themselves (the poor) and those that object.
After watching it I am left with two questions:
1) what happened to Henrys body? We last saw it in Zoey's room, no one mentioned moving it and it couldn't have been taken out of the house but it was never seen when the Freaks were going room to room, they even went into the room where it should have been.
2) were the cookies poisoned? The neighbour said they saw the shutters come down (pulled off) and decided to take the opportunity to kill the Sandins but the hatred was already there so could the cookies have been another way to kill them off. It's true that they would have had to have been cooked before the purge officially started but, going by when they given, they would not have been eaten until either a few minuets before the start or after it had started and I doubt that anyone official would pay too much attention to the bodies after the purge. There would be too many even if they wanted too.
1) We have the purge itself, a new political party has come in and started titular Purge, one night a year where any crime is legal (although the emphasis is on killing and, via subtext, rape). There are a few exceptions stated at the start of the film and, although it's not directly stated, it seems that minors are exempt, in that they can be targets but not actually participate in the killing.
2)The 'Boyfriend' subplot. This could have led to the main plot but seems to be there just to keep us off track at the beginning.
3) The bloody stranger - ok he's needed as he's the main McGuffin
4) The Freaks, Yes the film needs it's antagonists and it's sometimes good to throw in a red herring but we have; The Freaks, Henry (the boy friend), The Bloody stranger who is suspected as being dangerous when he first arrives, even Janes Sandin looks like he could be the antagonist when he is going to throw the stranger out of the house, then we have...
5) The neighbours - even from the start of the film there is something off about them.
6) Add all of this together with a lot of politics and you have a very layered film.
The first half of the film is mainly set up, setting up the idea of the purge and introducing the characters, there are a few shots of violence in the beginning but the film starts off slow. Then it explodes in violence.
Although the concept is the same, The Purge is a different beast to something like 'The Strangers', both films spend time building up to the the action but, when the action starts, the Purge is much faster paced, mainly because there are more 'hunters' and they have guns.
The Purge is also a very political film but it doesn't go down the 'rich vs poor' root that a lot of films do, this is mentioned a bit but only to back up the thinking behind some of those who partake in the event. The film shows two sides of the Purge and mentions two more, you have those that want to take part in the event and those (like the main family) who don't, the Sandin's just want to get through the night where as the 'Freaks' happily take part in it. It's also mentioned that there are those who can not protect themselves (the poor) and those that object.
After watching it I am left with two questions:
1) what happened to Henrys body? We last saw it in Zoey's room, no one mentioned moving it and it couldn't have been taken out of the house but it was never seen when the Freaks were going room to room, they even went into the room where it should have been.
2) were the cookies poisoned? The neighbour said they saw the shutters come down (pulled off) and decided to take the opportunity to kill the Sandins but the hatred was already there so could the cookies have been another way to kill them off. It's true that they would have had to have been cooked before the purge officially started but, going by when they given, they would not have been eaten until either a few minuets before the start or after it had started and I doubt that anyone official would pay too much attention to the bodies after the purge. There would be too many even if they wanted too.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990) in Movies
Dec 22, 2020
Gremlins Take Over The Big Apple
Gremlins 2: The New Batch- is a good sequel. Its still has its dark humor, comedy, horror and of course many gremlins. And you cant not forgot about Hulk Hogan, yes you read that right Hulk Hogan is in this. And the horror legend and icon Christopher Lee is also in this.
The plot: The magical collectibles store that Gizmo calls home has just been destroyed, and the tiny monster finds his way into a newly erected skyscraper. Billy Peltzer (Zach Galligan) and his bride-to-be, Kate (Phoebe Cates), who have previously dealt with Gremlins run amok, discover that Gizmo and an impish legion of reptilian pals are inhabiting the downtown building. The couple tries to stop the creatures from escaping into New York City, but this new batch of beasts might be uncontrollable.
Like the first film, Gremlins 2: The New Batch is a live-action horror comedy film; however, Dante put effort into taking the sequel in new anarchistic directions. The film is meant to be more cartoon-like and less dark than the original, with slapstick violence, so the film received a PG-13 rating by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). There are also a number of parodies of other films and stories, including Gremlins itself, the Rambo films, The Wizard of Oz, Marathon Man and The Phantom of the Opera.
Along with the main plot, there is animation by Chuck Jones in the film featuring the Looney Tunes characters Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Porky Pig. Jones had actually quit animation before returning to work on Gremlins 2: The New Batch.Dante explained the animation at the beginning of the film was meant to "set the anarchic tone."
The first scene appears at the very beginning of the movie, and features the classic Looney Tunes opening card, causing people to assume it is the short cartoon that usually plays before a movie begins; however, when Bugs appears through the rings on top of the Warner Bros. shield, Daffy interrupts the intro, and steals the shield from Bugs. Daffy attempts to recreate the opening with himself in Bugs' place, but the shield overshoots, causing the entire title card to fall apart. Daffy surrenders the stardom, claiming that since he will not star in the cartoon, they might as well just skip straight to the movie. Bugs is willing to do so, and spins Daffy off screen like a spinning top for the movie title to appear.
The DVD and Blu-ray include a longer version of the cartoon short. In it, Daffy is informed by Bugs that he has been promoted to executive and is subsequently put in charge writing the title of the movie. When Daffy mistakenly writes the title Gremlins 2 as "Gremlin Stew", Bugs corrects the error. Daffy then attempts to rename the film The Return of Super-Daffy Meets Gremlins 2 Part 6: The Movie, but Bugs rejects this for being too long, changing it back to Gremlins 2 (rendered in the font of the official logo). Daffy then quits his new job and Bugs decides to add in the subtitle, saying it looks "a little skimpy". This material was removed from the film because early audiences expected a live-action film and were bewildered by the lengthy animated sequence.
Throughout the film's closing credits, Daffy pops into frame sporadically and spouts off sarcastic comments. The last scene appears after the credits, and again features the Looney Tunes rings. This time, Porky comes out of the rings and tries to say his usual "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" However, Daffy interrupts again and takes over. After Daffy says the slogan, the back of the Warner Bros. shield, with the words, "Title Animation Written & Directed by Chuck Jones (with Chuck Jones' signature)", smashes him. He peeks his head out to the left side and says, "Fade out," and the segment ends.
Its a good film.
The plot: The magical collectibles store that Gizmo calls home has just been destroyed, and the tiny monster finds his way into a newly erected skyscraper. Billy Peltzer (Zach Galligan) and his bride-to-be, Kate (Phoebe Cates), who have previously dealt with Gremlins run amok, discover that Gizmo and an impish legion of reptilian pals are inhabiting the downtown building. The couple tries to stop the creatures from escaping into New York City, but this new batch of beasts might be uncontrollable.
Like the first film, Gremlins 2: The New Batch is a live-action horror comedy film; however, Dante put effort into taking the sequel in new anarchistic directions. The film is meant to be more cartoon-like and less dark than the original, with slapstick violence, so the film received a PG-13 rating by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). There are also a number of parodies of other films and stories, including Gremlins itself, the Rambo films, The Wizard of Oz, Marathon Man and The Phantom of the Opera.
Along with the main plot, there is animation by Chuck Jones in the film featuring the Looney Tunes characters Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Porky Pig. Jones had actually quit animation before returning to work on Gremlins 2: The New Batch.Dante explained the animation at the beginning of the film was meant to "set the anarchic tone."
The first scene appears at the very beginning of the movie, and features the classic Looney Tunes opening card, causing people to assume it is the short cartoon that usually plays before a movie begins; however, when Bugs appears through the rings on top of the Warner Bros. shield, Daffy interrupts the intro, and steals the shield from Bugs. Daffy attempts to recreate the opening with himself in Bugs' place, but the shield overshoots, causing the entire title card to fall apart. Daffy surrenders the stardom, claiming that since he will not star in the cartoon, they might as well just skip straight to the movie. Bugs is willing to do so, and spins Daffy off screen like a spinning top for the movie title to appear.
The DVD and Blu-ray include a longer version of the cartoon short. In it, Daffy is informed by Bugs that he has been promoted to executive and is subsequently put in charge writing the title of the movie. When Daffy mistakenly writes the title Gremlins 2 as "Gremlin Stew", Bugs corrects the error. Daffy then attempts to rename the film The Return of Super-Daffy Meets Gremlins 2 Part 6: The Movie, but Bugs rejects this for being too long, changing it back to Gremlins 2 (rendered in the font of the official logo). Daffy then quits his new job and Bugs decides to add in the subtitle, saying it looks "a little skimpy". This material was removed from the film because early audiences expected a live-action film and were bewildered by the lengthy animated sequence.
Throughout the film's closing credits, Daffy pops into frame sporadically and spouts off sarcastic comments. The last scene appears after the credits, and again features the Looney Tunes rings. This time, Porky comes out of the rings and tries to say his usual "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!" However, Daffy interrupts again and takes over. After Daffy says the slogan, the back of the Warner Bros. shield, with the words, "Title Animation Written & Directed by Chuck Jones (with Chuck Jones' signature)", smashes him. He peeks his head out to the left side and says, "Fade out," and the segment ends.
Its a good film.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Dec 27, 2020
Predictable and cliched
The Midnight Sky is a science fiction film directed by George Clooney, the latest in a long line of Netflix originals to hit our screens, based on the 2016 book ‘Good Morning, Midnight’ by Lily Brooks-Dalton. George Clooney plays Augustine, who encounters young girl Iris (the adorable Caoilinn Springall) after remaining on earth following a global apocalypse. Together they must travel across the Arctic to reach a weather station that will allow them to warn returning spaceship, the Aether, captained by Adewole (David Oyelowo) and crewed by Sully (Felicity Jones), Mitchell (Kyle Chandler), Sanchez (Demián Bichir) and Maya (Tiffany Boone).
The trailer for this had me concerned. It looked very similar to many other sci-fi/end of the world films (think Sunshine, Interstellar, even The Day After Tomorrow) and nothing about it looked particularly original. I had hoped that the trailer might be misleading, but I’m afraid to say that this is every bit as lacklustre and predictable as the trailer implied.
Visually this looks stunning, both the set design and the special effects have obviously had a decent amount of time and money invested in them. Alongside this, Alexandre Desplat’s score is beautifully ephemeral and haunting, and accompanies the story well, feeling very in keeping with both the Arctic and the space settings. And aside from a decent cast, I’m afraid these are the only good things I can say about this film. The main problem is the story itself, it’s entirely predictable and suffers from every space and sci-fi mishap you could ever think of, from unexplainable drifting off course to the destruction of important equipment (comms of course, would you expect any less?) due to an unpredicted meteor strike. And this cliched predictability just makes the story so dull and drawn out over its two hour runtime.
To be honest, the whole film itself and the actions of the characters just doesn’t make any sense. You have a pregnant astronaut, who has virtually no sexual chemistry with the man she’s having a baby with, and who’s allowed to go outside into space with little concern over her or her baby’s well-being. A scientist who falls into sub-zero Arctic water which appears to have little impact on his health. And a child walking around in a summer dress with bare legs in the Arctic climate. Admittedly this latter point is addressed towards the end of the film in a rather obvious and over used plot twist, which is still rather unsatisfying. There’s also the large number of unexplained plot points. I’m all for keeping the watcher guessing and hate films that feel the need to over explain every aspect of the plot, but The Midnight Sky takes the opposite approach and explains barely anything. If you go into this expecting to find out what caused the radiation apocalypse or what happened to the rest of earth’s population you’ll be sorely disappointed. It also makes references to a K-23 colony ship that the Aether hasn’t heard from, yet provides no explanation or background as to the outcome of said ship, and also gives us flashbacks to Augustine’s past yet with little reason other than to provide an “A-ha” moment for the aforementioned plot twist. And the decisions made by the astronauts on the Aether once they’ve found out about Earth’s fate are just laughably ridiculous especially considering the fate of the rest of the population.
Despite the promising cast and effects, The Midnight Sky is yet another disappointing Netflix original that is light years away from some of the more brilliant sci-fi stories that have come before it.
The trailer for this had me concerned. It looked very similar to many other sci-fi/end of the world films (think Sunshine, Interstellar, even The Day After Tomorrow) and nothing about it looked particularly original. I had hoped that the trailer might be misleading, but I’m afraid to say that this is every bit as lacklustre and predictable as the trailer implied.
Visually this looks stunning, both the set design and the special effects have obviously had a decent amount of time and money invested in them. Alongside this, Alexandre Desplat’s score is beautifully ephemeral and haunting, and accompanies the story well, feeling very in keeping with both the Arctic and the space settings. And aside from a decent cast, I’m afraid these are the only good things I can say about this film. The main problem is the story itself, it’s entirely predictable and suffers from every space and sci-fi mishap you could ever think of, from unexplainable drifting off course to the destruction of important equipment (comms of course, would you expect any less?) due to an unpredicted meteor strike. And this cliched predictability just makes the story so dull and drawn out over its two hour runtime.
To be honest, the whole film itself and the actions of the characters just doesn’t make any sense. You have a pregnant astronaut, who has virtually no sexual chemistry with the man she’s having a baby with, and who’s allowed to go outside into space with little concern over her or her baby’s well-being. A scientist who falls into sub-zero Arctic water which appears to have little impact on his health. And a child walking around in a summer dress with bare legs in the Arctic climate. Admittedly this latter point is addressed towards the end of the film in a rather obvious and over used plot twist, which is still rather unsatisfying. There’s also the large number of unexplained plot points. I’m all for keeping the watcher guessing and hate films that feel the need to over explain every aspect of the plot, but The Midnight Sky takes the opposite approach and explains barely anything. If you go into this expecting to find out what caused the radiation apocalypse or what happened to the rest of earth’s population you’ll be sorely disappointed. It also makes references to a K-23 colony ship that the Aether hasn’t heard from, yet provides no explanation or background as to the outcome of said ship, and also gives us flashbacks to Augustine’s past yet with little reason other than to provide an “A-ha” moment for the aforementioned plot twist. And the decisions made by the astronauts on the Aether once they’ve found out about Earth’s fate are just laughably ridiculous especially considering the fate of the rest of the population.
Despite the promising cast and effects, The Midnight Sky is yet another disappointing Netflix original that is light years away from some of the more brilliant sci-fi stories that have come before it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Clue (1985) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I wish I could remember the first time I saw Clue. It has been one of my favourites for years. Tim Curry as Wadsworth and Lesley Ann Warren as Miss Scarlet will always be the highlight of this for me. Looking at my sense of humour these days I see a lot of things I recognise from these older films that I grew up with.
FUN FACT - CASTING: Jonathan Lynn said that Carrie Fisher was originally cast as Miss Scarlet but went into rehab four days before filming began, so Warren was given the role instead.
Generally all round the cast is great and they all bring something memorable to their characters.
FUN FACT - COLOURS: The character's colourful monikers match with the colour of their playing pieces in the board game and their cars in the movie.
I'm not going to lie, the fact that they didn't wear their colours has always bothered me. Evidently they're all wearing the "opposite" of their colours... I'm not sure I care for that idea if I'm honest.
I can't put my finger on what I love so much about Clue. It's just so easy to watch. From the moment Wadsworth gives that dog a withering look to the triumphant ending it's just brilliant to watch. I can't think of a moment that I dislike, and trying to pick a favourite moment? Forget it. I'd just have to present you with the entire movie with ending C.
FUN FACT - ENDINGS: While there are three endings to the film that you can see on the blu-ray/DVD, there was actually a fourth one filmed where Wadsworth revealed that he had actually poisoned everyone earlier in the evening. It's still in the novelisation but was never shown.
There are so many laughs throughout and while I've seen it so often that I don't laugh out loud as much it still brings a smile to my face. I enjoy the slightly madcap interactions and the overly dramatic reactions.
Tim Curry really is amazing, I think basically all of us would agree with that. (Well apart from one person I found online who has evidently never liked anything he's been in.) This movie could be used as his emotional resume. I don't think there are any he missed!
FUN FACT - CASTING: Lynn was set to cast Leonard Rossiter (Rigsby from Rising Damp) as Wadsworth but he sadly passed away before production started. His second choice was Rowan Atkinson but the studio were worried he was too much of an unknown in the states at the time.
While I can definitely see Rossiter in his role I really can't imagine him having the same impact on screen. Curry's flamboyancy definitely lifted the film to pole position among comedies.
Watching Clue of course makes me want to watch Murder By Death which has a very similar feel, although not quite so manic towards the end.
"It's my defense mechanism!" - Miss Scarlet
Isn't it though!?
What you should do
I know older films aren't for everyone but Clue is amazingly fun and I feel like everyone need to see it, and if you don't love it... just tell me that you did in a text message so I can't tell you're lying to me.
Note: I brought a special edition of Clue from HMV. It was a blu-ray copy in a retro VHS type box. It also came with a small poster, a collectors card, a sticker and a DVD copy. It's fun and it's different, but ultimately that version really isn't worth the money. I would just get the cheapest thing that you can. The quality difference of the blu-ray isn't worth it and the VHS box gimmick is nice in theory but disappointing in reality.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Secret passageways in a house? Erm, yes please!
FUN FACT - CASTING: Jonathan Lynn said that Carrie Fisher was originally cast as Miss Scarlet but went into rehab four days before filming began, so Warren was given the role instead.
Generally all round the cast is great and they all bring something memorable to their characters.
FUN FACT - COLOURS: The character's colourful monikers match with the colour of their playing pieces in the board game and their cars in the movie.
I'm not going to lie, the fact that they didn't wear their colours has always bothered me. Evidently they're all wearing the "opposite" of their colours... I'm not sure I care for that idea if I'm honest.
I can't put my finger on what I love so much about Clue. It's just so easy to watch. From the moment Wadsworth gives that dog a withering look to the triumphant ending it's just brilliant to watch. I can't think of a moment that I dislike, and trying to pick a favourite moment? Forget it. I'd just have to present you with the entire movie with ending C.
FUN FACT - ENDINGS: While there are three endings to the film that you can see on the blu-ray/DVD, there was actually a fourth one filmed where Wadsworth revealed that he had actually poisoned everyone earlier in the evening. It's still in the novelisation but was never shown.
There are so many laughs throughout and while I've seen it so often that I don't laugh out loud as much it still brings a smile to my face. I enjoy the slightly madcap interactions and the overly dramatic reactions.
Tim Curry really is amazing, I think basically all of us would agree with that. (Well apart from one person I found online who has evidently never liked anything he's been in.) This movie could be used as his emotional resume. I don't think there are any he missed!
FUN FACT - CASTING: Lynn was set to cast Leonard Rossiter (Rigsby from Rising Damp) as Wadsworth but he sadly passed away before production started. His second choice was Rowan Atkinson but the studio were worried he was too much of an unknown in the states at the time.
While I can definitely see Rossiter in his role I really can't imagine him having the same impact on screen. Curry's flamboyancy definitely lifted the film to pole position among comedies.
Watching Clue of course makes me want to watch Murder By Death which has a very similar feel, although not quite so manic towards the end.
"It's my defense mechanism!" - Miss Scarlet
Isn't it though!?
What you should do
I know older films aren't for everyone but Clue is amazingly fun and I feel like everyone need to see it, and if you don't love it... just tell me that you did in a text message so I can't tell you're lying to me.
Note: I brought a special edition of Clue from HMV. It was a blu-ray copy in a retro VHS type box. It also came with a small poster, a collectors card, a sticker and a DVD copy. It's fun and it's different, but ultimately that version really isn't worth the money. I would just get the cheapest thing that you can. The quality difference of the blu-ray isn't worth it and the VHS box gimmick is nice in theory but disappointing in reality.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Secret passageways in a house? Erm, yes please!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Power Rangers (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
When I first heard that The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers would be getting a film adaptation, I was a bit apprehensive. Hollywood has had a bit of trouble converting many of the themes and issues brought up in a variety of shows into films that stay loyal to their respective franchises.
Fans on social media have often expressed their dissatisfaction with films not staying true to the origin stories or their inabil;ity to retain much of the character and charm that endeared them to their fans. Power Rangers does not suffer from this dilemma. As someone who watched the series as it first hit American markets in the 1990s, I was unsure of how this story would transfer onto the big screen.
It wasn’t something that I was too personally invested in. It was a series in which I considered myself to be a casual fan understanding the background, characters, and general direction of the show. I wasn’t prepared for what the film version offered.
This adaptation is near perfect in the way that it is able to create a modern, mature version that incorporates many aspects into weaving their story.
The basics of the film are roughly the same as the show: it is based in Angel Grove, there are five teenagers serving the role of rangers whose goal is to save the world, and all the complexities that come with being a superhero who has a “real life.”
One of the more remarkable issues related to the film is how the writers and director are able to be inclusive with their characters without being condescending to their audiences old and new. We get a glimpse of a team that is more colorful and diverse. Where the original crew showed a group of youths of different races, the film version does not stop with race as demonstrating the variety that exists within our world. The film allows for the inclusion of people on the autism spectrum, as well as, allowing for the inclusion of the LGBT community. The film shows audiences that there are people just like them or people that they know in the superhero realm. It is not limited by race, gender, sexual orientation, or cognitive development.
Power Rangers itself is a fun movie with depth. As the film continued, I tried to look for areas to pick it apart and find those pieces that really detracted from the story. The film has its faults in a simply developing storyline, but that goes with the franchise. It isn’t supposed to be complex or overbearing. The humor ranges from sophomoric to sophisticated. The film is accessible to those who are new to the franchise and those who have been watching since its inception. Additionally, it is a superhero movie it is not insulting to its audience. It demonstrates the difficulties that exist with teen life, presents real problems that they have to deal with in contrast to the fantasy that they are living out as part of this team.
The film is beautifully shot and the CGI is nearly seamless (the film is not overly reliant on it, either). The fighting and action sequences are as much a part of the story as the characters themselves. Power Rangers allows for audiences to be entertained visually and comedically. Additionally, it allows for those of us who have not watched or followed the Power Rangers in a while to be a bit nostalgic and look back to when we ourselves could not get home quickly enough for “Morphin’ Time.” The film is updated, mature, and will have fans young and old beaming with delight.
Fans on social media have often expressed their dissatisfaction with films not staying true to the origin stories or their inabil;ity to retain much of the character and charm that endeared them to their fans. Power Rangers does not suffer from this dilemma. As someone who watched the series as it first hit American markets in the 1990s, I was unsure of how this story would transfer onto the big screen.
It wasn’t something that I was too personally invested in. It was a series in which I considered myself to be a casual fan understanding the background, characters, and general direction of the show. I wasn’t prepared for what the film version offered.
This adaptation is near perfect in the way that it is able to create a modern, mature version that incorporates many aspects into weaving their story.
The basics of the film are roughly the same as the show: it is based in Angel Grove, there are five teenagers serving the role of rangers whose goal is to save the world, and all the complexities that come with being a superhero who has a “real life.”
One of the more remarkable issues related to the film is how the writers and director are able to be inclusive with their characters without being condescending to their audiences old and new. We get a glimpse of a team that is more colorful and diverse. Where the original crew showed a group of youths of different races, the film version does not stop with race as demonstrating the variety that exists within our world. The film allows for the inclusion of people on the autism spectrum, as well as, allowing for the inclusion of the LGBT community. The film shows audiences that there are people just like them or people that they know in the superhero realm. It is not limited by race, gender, sexual orientation, or cognitive development.
Power Rangers itself is a fun movie with depth. As the film continued, I tried to look for areas to pick it apart and find those pieces that really detracted from the story. The film has its faults in a simply developing storyline, but that goes with the franchise. It isn’t supposed to be complex or overbearing. The humor ranges from sophomoric to sophisticated. The film is accessible to those who are new to the franchise and those who have been watching since its inception. Additionally, it is a superhero movie it is not insulting to its audience. It demonstrates the difficulties that exist with teen life, presents real problems that they have to deal with in contrast to the fantasy that they are living out as part of this team.
The film is beautifully shot and the CGI is nearly seamless (the film is not overly reliant on it, either). The fighting and action sequences are as much a part of the story as the characters themselves. Power Rangers allows for audiences to be entertained visually and comedically. Additionally, it allows for those of us who have not watched or followed the Power Rangers in a while to be a bit nostalgic and look back to when we ourselves could not get home quickly enough for “Morphin’ Time.” The film is updated, mature, and will have fans young and old beaming with delight.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Black Water: Abyss (2020) in Movies
Aug 22, 2020
I don't know how I've never seen Black Water, but I saw the trailer for Abyss and it caught my eye so I'll be going back to check the first one out as they're usually better.
When Cash finds a cave while out searching for two missing hikers he invites his friends to explore it with him. Deep in the cave system they come upon a cavern, as they look around they're suddenly hit by a torrent of water and become trapped by the rising water... and they might not be alone.
Where to start... I love creature features, at this point that's common knowledge, but there are some that make me a little sad. Black Water: Abyss might be one of those. It has all the potential but somehow it wasn't engaging, perhaps it took itself a little too seriously?
It suffered from excessive length, or rather the perception of length as it had a runtime of just 1 hour 38 minutes. It felt a lot longer. 98 minutes would be a perfect length for this sort of film but this dragged on and on.
There's a tried and tested formula: group gets trapped, there's peril, group have to escape, most die or at least get maimed. 47 Meters Down, Deep Blue Sea, Crawl... I won't go on. It's a simple story that so many films before have done, it shouldn't have been hard to recreate.
The actors are all good. Luke Mitchell (Blindspot) and Jessica McNamee (The Meg) were both faces I recognised and their previous roles sat positively with me. They play Jen and Eric who are a happy couple on the surface but the tension builds, they work well together. Anthony J Sharpe as Cash givens off some heavy Murdock vibes, the slightly crazy character did lighten everything a little but I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing in the long run. Our other couple are Yolanda and Viktor (Amali Golden and Benjamin Hoetjes), they're made to be the opposites of Jen and Eric seemingly one particular line of dialogue in the middle. They didn't have the same presence but that wasn't really necessary.
CGI crocs. I'll give them some credit for the fact that there were a couple of shots where I couldn't say if they were CG, real or practical. For the most part though I wasn't excited by what I saw, there was a lot of eye and snout shots or just ripples in the water. The bigger shots were chaotic and mainly obscured by fast motion and water, when you do get a good view it doesn't gel with anything around it, the colourings in particular seem to be inconsistent with the light inside the cave.
There are a lot of leading shots that should help with suspense, but somehow don't. They're typical off-set characters with open space that make you think a croc is going to jump out, classic right? But it seems like they made a concerted effort to combat predictability by putting a few of those shots together and not using the first one for the scare... which had a negative effect for me. Part of the fun of these films is that you know something is coming and you can get a gratifying win from guessing what's going to happen, after a few thwarted attempts at that it became really frustrating and less than satisfying to watch.
Despite a lot of disappointment this isn't a bad film, swapping some of the drama for more action and giving the viewers a few "wins" would have easily made the runtime a bit more bearable. I did get a solid laugh out of it towards the end, perhaps it missed its calling as a comedy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/black-water-abyss-movie-review.html
When Cash finds a cave while out searching for two missing hikers he invites his friends to explore it with him. Deep in the cave system they come upon a cavern, as they look around they're suddenly hit by a torrent of water and become trapped by the rising water... and they might not be alone.
Where to start... I love creature features, at this point that's common knowledge, but there are some that make me a little sad. Black Water: Abyss might be one of those. It has all the potential but somehow it wasn't engaging, perhaps it took itself a little too seriously?
It suffered from excessive length, or rather the perception of length as it had a runtime of just 1 hour 38 minutes. It felt a lot longer. 98 minutes would be a perfect length for this sort of film but this dragged on and on.
There's a tried and tested formula: group gets trapped, there's peril, group have to escape, most die or at least get maimed. 47 Meters Down, Deep Blue Sea, Crawl... I won't go on. It's a simple story that so many films before have done, it shouldn't have been hard to recreate.
The actors are all good. Luke Mitchell (Blindspot) and Jessica McNamee (The Meg) were both faces I recognised and their previous roles sat positively with me. They play Jen and Eric who are a happy couple on the surface but the tension builds, they work well together. Anthony J Sharpe as Cash givens off some heavy Murdock vibes, the slightly crazy character did lighten everything a little but I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing in the long run. Our other couple are Yolanda and Viktor (Amali Golden and Benjamin Hoetjes), they're made to be the opposites of Jen and Eric seemingly one particular line of dialogue in the middle. They didn't have the same presence but that wasn't really necessary.
CGI crocs. I'll give them some credit for the fact that there were a couple of shots where I couldn't say if they were CG, real or practical. For the most part though I wasn't excited by what I saw, there was a lot of eye and snout shots or just ripples in the water. The bigger shots were chaotic and mainly obscured by fast motion and water, when you do get a good view it doesn't gel with anything around it, the colourings in particular seem to be inconsistent with the light inside the cave.
There are a lot of leading shots that should help with suspense, but somehow don't. They're typical off-set characters with open space that make you think a croc is going to jump out, classic right? But it seems like they made a concerted effort to combat predictability by putting a few of those shots together and not using the first one for the scare... which had a negative effect for me. Part of the fun of these films is that you know something is coming and you can get a gratifying win from guessing what's going to happen, after a few thwarted attempts at that it became really frustrating and less than satisfying to watch.
Despite a lot of disappointment this isn't a bad film, swapping some of the drama for more action and giving the viewers a few "wins" would have easily made the runtime a bit more bearable. I did get a solid laugh out of it towards the end, perhaps it missed its calling as a comedy.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/black-water-abyss-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Hunt on the edge… again.
2015’s “MI: Rogue Nation” was one of my favourite films of that year, so of all the summer blockbusters this was the one I was most looking forward to. Was I delighted? It’s a slightly qualified “YES!”.
The film neatly follows on from Rogue Nation with arch terrorist-in-need-of-a-razor Solomon Lane (Sean Harris) being extraordinarily renditioned (probably not a valid phrase!) between multiple countries who want to torture/punish him. But his followers – “The Apostles” – are still active and on the trail of plutonium that could devestate key sites, with religious centres being the top of the target list. Since Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) originally caught Lane, IMF Director Hunley (Alec Baldwin) despatches Hunt to intercept the plutonium.
But CIA director Erica Sloan (Angela Bassett) has no faith in the IMF, or trust that the organisation has not been infiltrated, and she insists that her ‘heavy’ August Walker (Henry Cavill) goes along for the ride. But they are not the only parties in play, for Isla Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) is also involved. But who is she working for?
What makes these films a cut above your average action adventure is the stunt work, with the knowledge that Cruise is at the centre of the action. In “Skyscraper” you KNOW Dwayne Johnson is standing on the ‘edge’ in front of a big green screen. Similarly here you KNOW Cruise is standing on the edge of the Tate Modern tower – probably without a safety line – as the camera goes 360 degrees around him. This makes all the difference to the adrenalin count.
There are some outstanding set pieces in the film, with extraordinarily spectacular shots from a ‘halo jump’ and a dramatic helicopter finale. But it is some of the smaller stuff that really impresses: a dramatic edge-of-the-seat car and motorbike chase through central Paris is one of the most impressive and terrifying things I’ve seen on film for many years; and Cruise’s literally bone-crunching run through London is also extremely exciting, with Simon Pegg adding good humour in his regular role of Benji. By the way, series regulars Ving Rhames, as Luther, and Michelle Monaghan, as Hunt’s ex-wife Julia, also make welcome returns but Jeremy Renner is missing this time.
Tom Cruise at 56 (he’s just 15 months younger than I am, damn it!) will eventually meet a Roger Moore-like Bond cliff when his Hunt role is no longer credible. But he’s not there yet! Rebecca Ferguson is again outstanding as Faust and as a newcomer in a similar role Vanessa Kirby (memorable as Princess Margaret in “The Crown”) impresses as the “White Widow” – someone with a familial link to a villain from the past!
Unusually, for a film series which has traditionally been kept fresh by changing directors and composers at each turn, Christopher McQuarrie (“Edge of Tomorrow“, “The Mummy“) returns following “Rogue Nation“, and he also writes the screenplay. The composing baton is handed over this time though to Lorne Balfe (“Churchill“, “Terminator: Genisys“) and for me this was a bit of a step down from the “Rogue Nation” soundtrack by Joe Kraemer which I really enjoyed.
Is it sufficiently fresh though? Let’s be clear here, I was enormously entertained throughout, and this should be near the top of your summer watch list. But it did ultimately feel at times a little like a light retread of “Rogue Nation“. Some of the stunts – notably the Paris and London scenes as above – were a step up for me, but there are some annoyances in McQuarrie’s script (see the spoiler section below the trailer), so for me the rating plateaus at the same as “Rogue Nation“.
The film neatly follows on from Rogue Nation with arch terrorist-in-need-of-a-razor Solomon Lane (Sean Harris) being extraordinarily renditioned (probably not a valid phrase!) between multiple countries who want to torture/punish him. But his followers – “The Apostles” – are still active and on the trail of plutonium that could devestate key sites, with religious centres being the top of the target list. Since Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) originally caught Lane, IMF Director Hunley (Alec Baldwin) despatches Hunt to intercept the plutonium.
But CIA director Erica Sloan (Angela Bassett) has no faith in the IMF, or trust that the organisation has not been infiltrated, and she insists that her ‘heavy’ August Walker (Henry Cavill) goes along for the ride. But they are not the only parties in play, for Isla Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) is also involved. But who is she working for?
What makes these films a cut above your average action adventure is the stunt work, with the knowledge that Cruise is at the centre of the action. In “Skyscraper” you KNOW Dwayne Johnson is standing on the ‘edge’ in front of a big green screen. Similarly here you KNOW Cruise is standing on the edge of the Tate Modern tower – probably without a safety line – as the camera goes 360 degrees around him. This makes all the difference to the adrenalin count.
There are some outstanding set pieces in the film, with extraordinarily spectacular shots from a ‘halo jump’ and a dramatic helicopter finale. But it is some of the smaller stuff that really impresses: a dramatic edge-of-the-seat car and motorbike chase through central Paris is one of the most impressive and terrifying things I’ve seen on film for many years; and Cruise’s literally bone-crunching run through London is also extremely exciting, with Simon Pegg adding good humour in his regular role of Benji. By the way, series regulars Ving Rhames, as Luther, and Michelle Monaghan, as Hunt’s ex-wife Julia, also make welcome returns but Jeremy Renner is missing this time.
Tom Cruise at 56 (he’s just 15 months younger than I am, damn it!) will eventually meet a Roger Moore-like Bond cliff when his Hunt role is no longer credible. But he’s not there yet! Rebecca Ferguson is again outstanding as Faust and as a newcomer in a similar role Vanessa Kirby (memorable as Princess Margaret in “The Crown”) impresses as the “White Widow” – someone with a familial link to a villain from the past!
Unusually, for a film series which has traditionally been kept fresh by changing directors and composers at each turn, Christopher McQuarrie (“Edge of Tomorrow“, “The Mummy“) returns following “Rogue Nation“, and he also writes the screenplay. The composing baton is handed over this time though to Lorne Balfe (“Churchill“, “Terminator: Genisys“) and for me this was a bit of a step down from the “Rogue Nation” soundtrack by Joe Kraemer which I really enjoyed.
Is it sufficiently fresh though? Let’s be clear here, I was enormously entertained throughout, and this should be near the top of your summer watch list. But it did ultimately feel at times a little like a light retread of “Rogue Nation“. Some of the stunts – notably the Paris and London scenes as above – were a step up for me, but there are some annoyances in McQuarrie’s script (see the spoiler section below the trailer), so for me the rating plateaus at the same as “Rogue Nation“.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Can 8 women do the work of 11, 12 or even 13 men?
The female empowerment #SheToo implications of the title are clearly writ large for this movie! The answer of course…. is a major spoiler, so we won’t go there.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.