Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Those Who Wish Me Dead (2021) in Movies
May 19, 2021
Disappointing
And…we have the “leader in the clubhouse” for the WORST FILM OF 2021.
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
As faithful readers of my reviews know, I’m all for a “turn you mind off” action flick, not really caring about plot/characters, but let some competent storytelling and decent action scenes transport me away from the real world for a few hours (or in this case, for 100 minutes) and THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD started off promisingly enough and so I settled into my chair looking to be entertained.
I’m still waiting
THOSE WHO WISH ME DEAD stars Angelina Jolie as a “Fire Jumper” who is suffering from a traumatic experience and is shying away from human connection and interaction, looking for cheap, death-defying thrills to feel some sort of emotion. Into her world comes a young boy who has witnessed a murder and the murderers are chasing him, so she must save him.
And…of course…there’s a fire.
I can roll with that flimsy plot (certainly other action flicks have been entertaining with much less plot) but TWWMD (as I will call this from now on) fails to capitalize at all on any of the aspects of the plot and fails to garner much in the way of interest throughout the film.
Director/Writer Taylor Sheridan (the writer on the terrific HELL OR HIGH WATER) was brought on board this film early on as a “script doctor” and then stepped into the Director’s role when the original director (smartly) dropped out and he promised the producer’s that he could get Angelina Jolie to star in it.
To be fair, Jolie brings the necessary star quality to the role of emotionally crippled “Fire Jumper” Hannah, and she looks like she was “game” for whatever Sheridan asked her to do - there just isn’t much for her to do.
And this is unfortunate, for Sheridan starts the movie with an interesting scene where our two hitmen (Aiden Gillen - “Littlefinger” from GAME OF THRONES and Nicholas Hoult - Beast in the X-MEN FIRST CLASS films) take out their first target. This is actually a pretty good scene and one that starts the film out with promise. Little did I know that it was the best scene in the film.
After that, nothing interesting really happens and the other characters (with an exception that I will speak about in a moment) are not interesting at all (I’m looking at you, Tyler Perry, who was clearly doing a favor for Sheridan). As a matter of fact, some of the other characters were just plain annyoing (I’m looking at you, “Fire Jumper” Friends of Hannah).
The exception to this is the work of Jon Bernthal (Shane in the first 2 season of THE WALKING DEAD) and Medina Senghore (an actress I had not seen before) as a local cop and his “survivalist” wife. These two bring some intensity and spark to pretty dull proceedings - I think I would have rather have seen a film that focused on these 2 characters, rather than Jolie’s.
Most of the blame for this must fall to Writer/Director Sheridan. I don’t think he ever figured out what type of film he was making. Is it an action flick? Sort of (and the action scenes are not all that good/interesting). Is it a redemption story? Sure. (But I didn’t buy how Jolie’s character needed redemption). Is it a story of survival? Kind of (but I didn’t really care for the child actor that was being saved).
There was a good idea in here, but this movie wasn’t even close to a good movie on this idea. Skip this one.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Greenland (2020) in Movies
Feb 11, 2021
A disaster movie starring Gerard Butler? Of course I was desperate to see it!
John Garrity has a golden ticket to survive the incoming apocalypse. A comet is heading to Earth and debris is wreaking havoc, but no one truly knew the trouble the world was facing. As the clock ticks down, it's a race for survival.
While the big plot point of this film was the disaster, it was actually quite heavily focused on the family drama... and I'm not going to lie, that made me a little disappointed early on.
I think it's best not to query certain things in Greenland... yeah, probably a lot of things you shouldn't think about really.
Greenland reminds me of Volcano in some instances. The ups and downs of what happens to the people in the disaster can be seen, though in this instance the focus is on the Garrity family and we see little of peripheral characters directly. But never the less, you're able to follow that rollercoaster of emotions as you go through the film and feel the highs and lows, as well as the hope and devastation.
Obviously Gerard Butler in a disaster films screams five stars. I loved Geo-Storm and watch it frequently, so I was fairly confident that this was going to be an instant favourite. Butler in an action film does call to me, and I like him with a bit of humour, but this was a solid drama and he nailed it. He gets several moments that perfectly show the character's emotional journey, and I felt that impact (pun intended?).
Garrity's wife is played by the wonderful Morena Baccarin. She also has the opportunity for some powerful moments, and one of them hits you like a dump truck. Along with Butler they work as impressive and strong leads to the individual stems of the film.
Unusually I found all the additional cast to be good too, there's normally someone that isn't quite my cup of tea, but I was pleasantly surprised that I didn't find that here. There wasn't a moment that took me out of the film at all. While the rest of the acting takes a back seat to the leads once the acting started there were a few amazing moments early on from the Garrity's neighbours. Claire Bronson as Debra (I really hope I got the right actress here) has one of the most incredible moments, and it truly got to me. There were so many moments that made me cry or hold my breath, even the second time around... I really can't fault the acting.
When it comes to the effects I get really sad. In the trailer you see a piece of debris crash into the planet and some of the following scene plays out. That moment in full is incredible to watch, the build up to it and the ripple effects it causes are such a strong moment that helped to cement the severity of the situation... I felt it from my TV, hell, I felt it when I watch it from my iPad... but I couldn't help but think about how amazing it would have been to experience that at the cinema.
As cheesy as some disaster film effects can be, and let's face it, there are some truly dire disaster films out there if you know where to look, there wasn't a moment in Greenland where it felt unrealistic. The effects all looked natural (within the scope of my knowledge in the real world... and crappy made for TV disaster movies) and that really helped with the drama.
How can I sum up Greenland? The emotional performances, the effects, the colour palette of the film... it all combined for an excellent watch. I've seen it twice already, and I'll absolutely be watching it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/greenland-movie-review.html
John Garrity has a golden ticket to survive the incoming apocalypse. A comet is heading to Earth and debris is wreaking havoc, but no one truly knew the trouble the world was facing. As the clock ticks down, it's a race for survival.
While the big plot point of this film was the disaster, it was actually quite heavily focused on the family drama... and I'm not going to lie, that made me a little disappointed early on.
I think it's best not to query certain things in Greenland... yeah, probably a lot of things you shouldn't think about really.
Greenland reminds me of Volcano in some instances. The ups and downs of what happens to the people in the disaster can be seen, though in this instance the focus is on the Garrity family and we see little of peripheral characters directly. But never the less, you're able to follow that rollercoaster of emotions as you go through the film and feel the highs and lows, as well as the hope and devastation.
Obviously Gerard Butler in a disaster films screams five stars. I loved Geo-Storm and watch it frequently, so I was fairly confident that this was going to be an instant favourite. Butler in an action film does call to me, and I like him with a bit of humour, but this was a solid drama and he nailed it. He gets several moments that perfectly show the character's emotional journey, and I felt that impact (pun intended?).
Garrity's wife is played by the wonderful Morena Baccarin. She also has the opportunity for some powerful moments, and one of them hits you like a dump truck. Along with Butler they work as impressive and strong leads to the individual stems of the film.
Unusually I found all the additional cast to be good too, there's normally someone that isn't quite my cup of tea, but I was pleasantly surprised that I didn't find that here. There wasn't a moment that took me out of the film at all. While the rest of the acting takes a back seat to the leads once the acting started there were a few amazing moments early on from the Garrity's neighbours. Claire Bronson as Debra (I really hope I got the right actress here) has one of the most incredible moments, and it truly got to me. There were so many moments that made me cry or hold my breath, even the second time around... I really can't fault the acting.
When it comes to the effects I get really sad. In the trailer you see a piece of debris crash into the planet and some of the following scene plays out. That moment in full is incredible to watch, the build up to it and the ripple effects it causes are such a strong moment that helped to cement the severity of the situation... I felt it from my TV, hell, I felt it when I watch it from my iPad... but I couldn't help but think about how amazing it would have been to experience that at the cinema.
As cheesy as some disaster film effects can be, and let's face it, there are some truly dire disaster films out there if you know where to look, there wasn't a moment in Greenland where it felt unrealistic. The effects all looked natural (within the scope of my knowledge in the real world... and crappy made for TV disaster movies) and that really helped with the drama.
How can I sum up Greenland? The emotional performances, the effects, the colour palette of the film... it all combined for an excellent watch. I've seen it twice already, and I'll absolutely be watching it again.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/02/greenland-movie-review.html
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.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The New Mutants (2020) in Movies
Sep 9, 2020
Character-driven storyline rather than wham-bam Marvel action (1 more)
Illyana Rasputin - great character
"Glass" - Half Full.
So, I've heard a lot of bad word-of-mouth about this X-Men flick, but otherwise knew very little about it. As such, I went in with low expectations. And although there is nothing remotely novel about the movie, I didn't think it was too bad at all.
The plot: So, my review title suggests that the plot is very closely aligned to M Night Shymalan's "Glass" - his "Split" sequel from last year. A Victorian-style hospital-cum-prison similarly forms the claustrophobic setting for the majority of the movie. This is where the troubled teen Dani Moonstar (Blu Hunt) is taken after being suddenly orphaned in dramatic and mysterious circumstances. The only doctor present, Dr Reyes (Alice Braga), says she is being held there for her own - and society's safety - while her puberty-driven mutant tendencies emerge.
Locked away with her is Rahne (Maisie Williams), Charlie (Sam Guthrie), 'hot' Brazilian hunk Roberto (Henry Zaga) and the gloriously named Illyana Rasputin (Anya-Taylor Joy). Danni's arrival sparks a serious of escalating events that literally lead to all hell breaking loose.
Blu is the warmest colour: What made this Marvel movie stand-out for me, from the normal glass-shattering standard, is that it is predominantly a character-led piece. We spend quite a bit of time (for a Marvel movie) in building relationships between the teens, including a sweet lesbian-coming-out 'will they/won't they' tension between Rahne and Danni.
I was also very much attracted to the performance of Blu Hunt. I admit that this might not just be due to her interesting performance (the indigenous / LBGT angle is intriguing) but because she reminded me strongly of a girl at school who I had a mad crush on and completely failed to get off with! Blu is actually native American (from the Lakota tribe). Given she is the lead and has to carry the movie, it's a surprise that she is only about 5th in the billing: I'd have been upset with the director (Josh "A Fault in our Stars" Boone) about that.
Maisie Williams is also effective in this, and gets top billing, although arguably Anya-Taylor-Joy has emerged - with her wonderful "Emma" - as the bigger star since filming.
But it's Taylor-Joy's Rasputin that really stands out as the most interesting of the characters on show. There's a scene where she goes into action - eyes blazing and 'daemon' hovering - that would make a splendid PC screensaver! Stuff the "Black Widow" standalone movie: I'd go watch Illyana Rasputin kicking ass in her own follow-up movie! (Of course, Anya Taylor-Joy was also prominent in "Glass", which unfortunately cements the similarities between the films.)
The movie has had a long and tortuous path to its final release, being made waaaaaayyyyy back in 2017. As an X-Men movie, it's appeared after the X-Men universe finally imploded (with the disappointing whimper of "Dark Phoenix"). So in that sense it's a bit of a ghost of a flick.
Overall, it's a mixed bag. There's a sense of great familiarity with the contents - particularly with the strong echoes of "Glass", actually filmed after this one (but with 'inversion', who knows anymore?). Even the "Indian legend" that runs through the movie swaps a bear for a wolf but ends with a familiar, rather groan-inducing, motto. (It was used in "Tomorrowland" I think?)
But the young cast are attractive and entertained me for the (pleasantly short) running time. It's not going to win any prizes for originality, or indeed anything else. But it really wasn't the X-Men bust I expected it to be.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/08/x-men-the-new-mutants-2020-glass-half-full/ . Thanks.)
The plot: So, my review title suggests that the plot is very closely aligned to M Night Shymalan's "Glass" - his "Split" sequel from last year. A Victorian-style hospital-cum-prison similarly forms the claustrophobic setting for the majority of the movie. This is where the troubled teen Dani Moonstar (Blu Hunt) is taken after being suddenly orphaned in dramatic and mysterious circumstances. The only doctor present, Dr Reyes (Alice Braga), says she is being held there for her own - and society's safety - while her puberty-driven mutant tendencies emerge.
Locked away with her is Rahne (Maisie Williams), Charlie (Sam Guthrie), 'hot' Brazilian hunk Roberto (Henry Zaga) and the gloriously named Illyana Rasputin (Anya-Taylor Joy). Danni's arrival sparks a serious of escalating events that literally lead to all hell breaking loose.
Blu is the warmest colour: What made this Marvel movie stand-out for me, from the normal glass-shattering standard, is that it is predominantly a character-led piece. We spend quite a bit of time (for a Marvel movie) in building relationships between the teens, including a sweet lesbian-coming-out 'will they/won't they' tension between Rahne and Danni.
I was also very much attracted to the performance of Blu Hunt. I admit that this might not just be due to her interesting performance (the indigenous / LBGT angle is intriguing) but because she reminded me strongly of a girl at school who I had a mad crush on and completely failed to get off with! Blu is actually native American (from the Lakota tribe). Given she is the lead and has to carry the movie, it's a surprise that she is only about 5th in the billing: I'd have been upset with the director (Josh "A Fault in our Stars" Boone) about that.
Maisie Williams is also effective in this, and gets top billing, although arguably Anya-Taylor-Joy has emerged - with her wonderful "Emma" - as the bigger star since filming.
But it's Taylor-Joy's Rasputin that really stands out as the most interesting of the characters on show. There's a scene where she goes into action - eyes blazing and 'daemon' hovering - that would make a splendid PC screensaver! Stuff the "Black Widow" standalone movie: I'd go watch Illyana Rasputin kicking ass in her own follow-up movie! (Of course, Anya Taylor-Joy was also prominent in "Glass", which unfortunately cements the similarities between the films.)
The movie has had a long and tortuous path to its final release, being made waaaaaayyyyy back in 2017. As an X-Men movie, it's appeared after the X-Men universe finally imploded (with the disappointing whimper of "Dark Phoenix"). So in that sense it's a bit of a ghost of a flick.
Overall, it's a mixed bag. There's a sense of great familiarity with the contents - particularly with the strong echoes of "Glass", actually filmed after this one (but with 'inversion', who knows anymore?). Even the "Indian legend" that runs through the movie swaps a bear for a wolf but ends with a familiar, rather groan-inducing, motto. (It was used in "Tomorrowland" I think?)
But the young cast are attractive and entertained me for the (pleasantly short) running time. It's not going to win any prizes for originality, or indeed anything else. But it really wasn't the X-Men bust I expected it to be.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/09/08/x-men-the-new-mutants-2020-glass-half-full/ . Thanks.)
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated House of X/Powers of X in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I regret that it took me almost a month to finish my re-visit of HoX/PoX, but it did. And, not because the book sucked (COVID-19's mandatory "Stay-at-Home" shit starts to grate on the nerves, y'know?)! ANYWAY...
***
Say what you want about Marvel and their annoying reboot kerfuffles, but this whole "Dawn of X" that Jonathan Hickman is helming? FUCKING BRILLIANT, okay?!!? I swear to ya, the X-books haven't been this exciting or even remotely relevant in about twenty years! And as some who's been reading the X-books since the late 70's (yeah, I'm THAT old!), you can be sure that means something!
I have been bored with Wolverine's character the last handful of years. Other than the film LOGAN, I thought his character was overused and something of an ass, if I have to be honest. However, here? Holy crow, I am digging the ol' canucklehead again! Thank you, Mr. Hickman!
And I am going to keep this next bit Spoiler-free, just in case there is anyone reading this review and they have not yet finishing a'readin' it... Who knew [SPOILER-FREE] was a frikkin' mutant?! Again, I am a reader of the X-Men since the late 70's, but I still never had an even inkling that they were a mutant! And the way it was all presented? EPIC! I wanted to hate it, because it sounded so frikkin' trope-ish, without any redemptive potential! None of us likes to be proven wrong, but in this, yeah, I'll take it! Hickman did a smashing job with this plot point, one in which I am apt to conclude that when "Dawn of X" reaches its pinnacle (whenever this is.. <u>Thanks, COVID!!</u>), it's gonna come back around and it's a'gonna pack one hell of a punch!
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/188153395@N04/50081223842/in/dateposted-public/"; title="Image00016"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50081223842_cb1c47d5be_n.jpg"; width="220" height="218" alt="Image00016"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And I am fairly certain that what I am about to say is not going to be a spoiler, as I feel this has been true for some time now, but good Lord, Professor X is a dick! He is playing chess, with a board in his head that only he knows of, and anyone who is close to him gets relegated to "pawn status"!
I totally get where he, Erik (Magneto) and [SPOILER-FREE] are working towards with the whole mutant-nation of Krakoa, I truly do! But, with Xavier keep his hand of cards close to his chest, it seems sketchy at best! While we have seen Xaviers in past X-books where he wasn't as good as we thought, but it got old hat, y'know? Here? Yeah, I'm in for the long haul, as I am curious where this is all going to go and I suspect it's not going to go well as far as Xavier is concerned!
And amaz-a-balls as Hickman is with all this, it would be so unbecoming of me if I didn't address the fab art on both series! We had Pepe Larraz on HoX, while R.B. Silva handled the art for PoX. And let me tell ya, both of them did bang-up jobs, really bringing the icing for two already outstanding "cakes"! Bravo, gentleman, bravo!
So, time to wrap this up.. If you have any vested interest in all things mutant-related and have felt severely disappointed in the way things have been handled for the last twenty years plus, then you sincerely owe it to yourself to read this book! Worse case scenario? You're a closed-minded S.O.B., like I used to be, and there's just no pleasin' yer ass!
Peace. y'all!
***
Say what you want about Marvel and their annoying reboot kerfuffles, but this whole "Dawn of X" that Jonathan Hickman is helming? FUCKING BRILLIANT, okay?!!? I swear to ya, the X-books haven't been this exciting or even remotely relevant in about twenty years! And as some who's been reading the X-books since the late 70's (yeah, I'm THAT old!), you can be sure that means something!
I have been bored with Wolverine's character the last handful of years. Other than the film LOGAN, I thought his character was overused and something of an ass, if I have to be honest. However, here? Holy crow, I am digging the ol' canucklehead again! Thank you, Mr. Hickman!
And I am going to keep this next bit Spoiler-free, just in case there is anyone reading this review and they have not yet finishing a'readin' it... Who knew [SPOILER-FREE] was a frikkin' mutant?! Again, I am a reader of the X-Men since the late 70's, but I still never had an even inkling that they were a mutant! And the way it was all presented? EPIC! I wanted to hate it, because it sounded so frikkin' trope-ish, without any redemptive potential! None of us likes to be proven wrong, but in this, yeah, I'll take it! Hickman did a smashing job with this plot point, one in which I am apt to conclude that when "Dawn of X" reaches its pinnacle (whenever this is.. <u>Thanks, COVID!!</u>), it's gonna come back around and it's a'gonna pack one hell of a punch!
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/188153395@N04/50081223842/in/dateposted-public/"; title="Image00016"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50081223842_cb1c47d5be_n.jpg"; width="220" height="218" alt="Image00016"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And I am fairly certain that what I am about to say is not going to be a spoiler, as I feel this has been true for some time now, but good Lord, Professor X is a dick! He is playing chess, with a board in his head that only he knows of, and anyone who is close to him gets relegated to "pawn status"!
I totally get where he, Erik (Magneto) and [SPOILER-FREE] are working towards with the whole mutant-nation of Krakoa, I truly do! But, with Xavier keep his hand of cards close to his chest, it seems sketchy at best! While we have seen Xaviers in past X-books where he wasn't as good as we thought, but it got old hat, y'know? Here? Yeah, I'm in for the long haul, as I am curious where this is all going to go and I suspect it's not going to go well as far as Xavier is concerned!
And amaz-a-balls as Hickman is with all this, it would be so unbecoming of me if I didn't address the fab art on both series! We had Pepe Larraz on HoX, while R.B. Silva handled the art for PoX. And let me tell ya, both of them did bang-up jobs, really bringing the icing for two already outstanding "cakes"! Bravo, gentleman, bravo!
So, time to wrap this up.. If you have any vested interest in all things mutant-related and have felt severely disappointed in the way things have been handled for the last twenty years plus, then you sincerely owe it to yourself to read this book! Worse case scenario? You're a closed-minded S.O.B., like I used to be, and there's just no pleasin' yer ass!
Peace. y'all!
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Ghost Stories in Tabletop Games
Jul 28, 2020 (Updated Jul 30, 2020)
The Gameplay (4 more)
The Strategy
Replay Value
Thinking Ten Steps Ahead
The Concept
Hard (2 more)
Luck of the dice
The cruse dice
Spooky Scary Ghosts
I learned about this game through Dice Tower reviews, Rahdo runthrough and BoardGameGeek. And it looked really good. A cooperative game in which the players protect the village from incarnations of the lord of hell – Wu-Feng – and his legions of ghosts before they haunt a town and recover the ashes that will allow him to return to life. That sounded really intresting and unquite. So i bought it and its a excellent game. Let me talk more about it..
Gameplay:
Each Player represents a Taoist monk working together with the others to fight off waves of ghosts.
The players, using teamwork, will have to exorcise the ghosts that appear during the course of the game. At the beginning of his turn, a player brings a ghost into play and places it on a free spot, and more than one can come in at the same time. The ghosts all have abilities of their own – some affecting the Taoists and their powers, some causing the active player to roll the curse die for a random effect, and others haunting the villager tiles and blocking that tile's special action. On his turn, a Taoist can move on a tile in order to exorcise adjacent ghosts or to benefit from the villager living on the tile, providing it is not haunted. Each tile of the village allows the players to benefit from a different bonus. With the cemetery, for example, Taoists can bring a dead Taoist back to life, while the herbalist allows to recover spent Tao tokens, etc. It will also be possible to get traps or move ghosts or unhaunt other village tiles.
To exorcise a ghost, the Taoist rolls three Tao dice with different colors: red, blue, green, yellow, black, and white. If the result of the roll matches the color(s) of the ghost or incarnation of Wu-Feng, the exorcism succeeds. The white result is a wild color that can be used as any color. For example, to exorcise a green ghost with 3 resistance, you need to roll three green, three white, or a combination of both. If your die rolls fall short, you can also use Tao tokens that match the color in addition to your roll. You may choose to use these after your roll. Taoists gain these tokens by using certain village tiles or by exorcising certain ghosts. One of the Taoists has a power that allows him to receive such a token once per turn.
To win, the players must defeat the incarnation of Wu-Feng, a boss who arrives at the end of the game. There are also harder difficulty levels that add more incarnations of Wu-Feng, in which to win, you must defeat all of them.
There are many more ways to lose, however. The players lose if three of the village's tiles are haunted, if the draw pile is emptied while the incarnation of Wu-Feng is still in play, or if all the priests are dead.
It is hard game but the strategy to this game is excellent cause you have to think about your moves and what to do next. That and the clock is ticking down to one of the ten Wu-Feng Minions. Also if 3 village spaces get crushed than you lose. Also the luck of the dice and the cards. The strategy is ten fold. Its hard but a excellent game and a must play game. Buy it if you havent already cause its a must. If you want to learn more or see a runthrough of the game go to BoardGameGeek, Rahdo Runthroughs or Dice Tower Reviews.
Gameplay:
Each Player represents a Taoist monk working together with the others to fight off waves of ghosts.
The players, using teamwork, will have to exorcise the ghosts that appear during the course of the game. At the beginning of his turn, a player brings a ghost into play and places it on a free spot, and more than one can come in at the same time. The ghosts all have abilities of their own – some affecting the Taoists and their powers, some causing the active player to roll the curse die for a random effect, and others haunting the villager tiles and blocking that tile's special action. On his turn, a Taoist can move on a tile in order to exorcise adjacent ghosts or to benefit from the villager living on the tile, providing it is not haunted. Each tile of the village allows the players to benefit from a different bonus. With the cemetery, for example, Taoists can bring a dead Taoist back to life, while the herbalist allows to recover spent Tao tokens, etc. It will also be possible to get traps or move ghosts or unhaunt other village tiles.
To exorcise a ghost, the Taoist rolls three Tao dice with different colors: red, blue, green, yellow, black, and white. If the result of the roll matches the color(s) of the ghost or incarnation of Wu-Feng, the exorcism succeeds. The white result is a wild color that can be used as any color. For example, to exorcise a green ghost with 3 resistance, you need to roll three green, three white, or a combination of both. If your die rolls fall short, you can also use Tao tokens that match the color in addition to your roll. You may choose to use these after your roll. Taoists gain these tokens by using certain village tiles or by exorcising certain ghosts. One of the Taoists has a power that allows him to receive such a token once per turn.
To win, the players must defeat the incarnation of Wu-Feng, a boss who arrives at the end of the game. There are also harder difficulty levels that add more incarnations of Wu-Feng, in which to win, you must defeat all of them.
There are many more ways to lose, however. The players lose if three of the village's tiles are haunted, if the draw pile is emptied while the incarnation of Wu-Feng is still in play, or if all the priests are dead.
It is hard game but the strategy to this game is excellent cause you have to think about your moves and what to do next. That and the clock is ticking down to one of the ten Wu-Feng Minions. Also if 3 village spaces get crushed than you lose. Also the luck of the dice and the cards. The strategy is ten fold. Its hard but a excellent game and a must play game. Buy it if you havent already cause its a must. If you want to learn more or see a runthrough of the game go to BoardGameGeek, Rahdo Runthroughs or Dice Tower Reviews.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Phantom Thread (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“There’s an air of quiet death in this house”.
The alleged acting swan-song of Daniel Day-Lewis (“Lincoln“) sees him deliver a brilliantly intense portrayal of a maestro in his craft with all the quirks and egotistical faults that come with that position.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950’s fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, “Maleficent“).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, “The Colony”). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and – aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words – limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manville’s award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles I’ve seen this year so far.
It’s a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for “Darkest Hour”, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because “he always gets one”. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips – not an actress I know – also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasn’t such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood. It’s really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with “The Shape of Water“).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Inherent Vice”, “There Will Be Blood”). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the “fashion industry” (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ‘duty’ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say “There is strong language (‘f**k’), as well as milder terms including ‘bloody’ and ‘hell’. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a woman’s nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.” For a 12A, the board say “The use of strong language (for example, ‘f***’) must be infrequent”. I didn’t count the f-words… but as I said I don’t think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that “frequent”? And – SHOCK, HORROR… visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within “Black Panther”, you have to question this disparity.
Reynolds Woodcock is the craftsman behind a world-renowned 1950’s fashion house, in demand from the elite classes and even royalty. He has a magnetic personality, is overtly self-confident, obsessive, a cruel bully and treats his girlfriends as chattels that he can tire of and dismiss from his life without a backward glance. Trying to keep the business and Reynolds on track, with ruthless efficiency, is his sister Cyril (Leslie Manville, “Maleficent“).
Looking for his next conquest during a trip to his seaside residence, he reels in blushing young waitress Alma (Vicky Krieps, “The Colony”). But he gets more than he bargains for.
This is a really exquisite and gentle film. Aside from some dubious fungi-related practices, there is no violence, no sex and – aside from about half a dozen well-chosen F-words – limited swearing (of which more below). This is a study of the developing relationship between the two protagonists, with little in the way of plot. Sounds dull? Far from it. This is two hours that flew by.
What it also features is (yet) another example of extremely strong women asserting their power. A scene (well trailed in Manville’s award snippets) where Cyril firmly puts Reynolds back in his box is brilliant: a real turning of tables with Woodcock meekly falling into line. And Alma makes for an incredibly rich and complicated character, one of the most interesting female roles I’ve seen this year so far.
It’s a stellar acting performance from Day-Lewis, and while Oldman fully deserves all of his award kudos for “Darkest Hour”, Day-Lewis delivers the goods without any of the make-up. It feels like Day-Lewis is a long way down the betting odds this year because “he always gets one”. He certainly gets my vote ahead of all of the other three nominees.
Kreips – not an actress I know – also brilliantly holds her own, and if it wasn’t such a strong female field this year she could well have been nominated.
Also worthy of note is the pervasive piano score by (suprisingly) Radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood. It’s really lovely and counterpoints the rest of the classical score nicely. Its BAFTA and Oscar nominations are both well deserved (though I would expect the Oscar to follow the BAFTA steer with “The Shape of Water“).
All in all, this is a real tour de force by writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson (“Inherent Vice”, “There Will Be Blood”). How much I enjoyed this film was a surprise to me, since I have no interest in the “fashion industry” (as my family will no doubt be quick to point out!) and I went to see this more out of ‘duty’ based on its Oscar buzz than because I really wanted to see it.
The big curiosity is why exactly the BBFC decided that this film was worthy of a 15 certificate rather than a 12A. Their comments on the film say “There is strong language (‘f**k’), as well as milder terms including ‘bloody’ and ‘hell’. Other issues include mild sex references and scenes of emotional upset. In one scene, a woman’s nipples are visible through her slip while she is measured for a dress.” For a 12A, the board say “The use of strong language (for example, ‘f***’) must be infrequent”. I didn’t count the f-words… but as I said I don’t think it amounts to more than a half-dozen. Is that “frequent”? And – SHOCK, HORROR… visible covered nipples you say?! Lock up your teenagers! When you look at the gentleness of this film versus the violence within “Black Panther”, you have to question this disparity.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Infernal
Dan Brown has had a bad rap over the years from snobbish reviewers who dismiss his work as “trash”. I’m sure to a large degree the multi-millionaire Dan Brown couldn’t give a toss! I personally enjoyed both the books and Ron Howard’s films of “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels and Demons” as glossy escapism. Occasionally though books will generate a “WHHAAAT??” moment and Brown’s 2013 novel “Inferno” generated just such a response in its dramatic conclusion… and (for me at least) not in a good way. As someone always looking at script potential in books, the words “unfilmable” came to mind. So veteran screenwriter David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”, “Mission Impossible”, “Spiderman”) is to be congratulated in ‘adapting’ the story to provide a coherent screenplay.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Light Between Oceans (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You only have to forgive once. To resent, you have to do it all day, every day”.
In my review of “The Two Faces of January” I described it as a film that “will be particularly enjoyed by older viewers who remember when story and location were put far ahead of CGI-based special effects”. In watching this film I was again linking in my mind to that earlier film… and that was before the lead character suddenly brought up the two faces of Janus!
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Impressive Cast & Visuals Are Not Enough When Compared To The First Film's Magical Story
Contains spoilers, click to show
The beginning started off strong for this movie and it immediately reminded me of what i liked about the first one. Angelina Jolie is just magnificent as Maleficent and you can tell she really enjoys acting the part. I didn't really understand why the people feared her is she wasn't a bad guy (which was the point of the first one I thought, showing the story from her side), but apparently the Queen was spreading rumors or stories to make people frightened. At the dinner scene it was quite believable from Maleficent's outburst that she might have done something to the King but to me it was too out of character that Aurora would believe her to do something like that. Also it was too Deus Ex Machina for another Fey, Connall to have been around close enough for him to save Maleficent when she is shot by an iron bullet. I really liked the scene where they fly around the underground caverns where the other Fey live and show the different biomes and talk about her unknown heritage. It bothered me that the Queen had that little fairy guy that was doing the experiments for her on his own people and how that stuff could kill him too, but what bothered me more was that it never showed his motivations when he released the little creatures in the dungeon. It just showed him do it and never said why or what changed his mind, I feel like there might have been a scene cut there or something. And then there was a couple of ridiculous scenes for me that almost killed this movie for me. One was that all the fairy creatures were invited to the wedding, which was obviously a trap with the red powder already being hinted at, but the fact that the people didn't make as much a deal about it like they did when Maleficent came to dinner surprised me. I mean they had guards holding back the citizens but when Maleficent appeared they ran away, wouldn't they have acted similarly if there were monsters coming to their kingdom. The attack by the Dark Fey on the castle was also one of those parts that made me wonder what the hell was going on. They are massacred on a big scale by the red powder which earlier in the film, it said that it was hard to make or took a long time, but they had butt loads of it in this battle. They had so much that when the Dark Fey retreat and change where they attack the humans even had traps setup in those areas as well. I mean it made for an interesting intense battle scene but Maleficent was the only one of her kind the humans had ever seen and only the Queen's servant said she saw one similar to her save her from the water. How did they know an army was coming and attacking by air. Good planning, smart Queen I guess. I was greatly disappointed that Maleficent didn't turn into a dragon like the cartoon. I love seeing a good dragon on screen but I guess the Phoenix was a good change and fit more with the story especially with her sacrifice. Phoenix's are reborn from their ashes as it says. The last part I found to be laughable was that when the battle is over Aurora is like, "Weddings back on". Her and the Prince are like, we will live in peace from now on with the Moors. Ok, you were just killing each other a couple of minutes ago, and so many Dark Fey died it wasn't even funny. Oh yeah, this movie also did quite a great job of hiding any blood whatsoever in a lot of scenes where there probably should have been some maybe a little. I mean Maleficent gets shot, Connall gets shot up like swiss-cheese, and the soldiers are shooting in the final battle and everyone has weapons like axes, swords, etc..
The beginning started off strong for this movie and it immediately reminded me of what i liked about the first one. Angelina Jolie is just magnificent as Maleficent and you can tell she really enjoys acting the part. I didn't really understand why the people feared her is she wasn't a bad guy (which was the point of the first one I thought, showing the story from her side), but apparently the Queen was spreading rumors or stories to make people frightened. At the dinner scene it was quite believable from Maleficent's outburst that she might have done something to the King but to me it was too out of character that Aurora would believe her to do something like that. Also it was too Deus Ex Machina for another Fey, Connall to have been around close enough for him to save Maleficent when she is shot by an iron bullet. I really liked the scene where they fly around the underground caverns where the other Fey live and show the different biomes and talk about her unkown heritage. It bothered me that the Queen had that little fairy guy that was doing the experiments for her on his own people and how that stuff could kill him too, but what bothered me more was that it never showed his motivations when he released the little creatures in the dungeon. It just showed him do it and never said why or what changed his mind, I feel like there might have been a scene cut there or something. And then there was a couple of ridiculous scenes for me that almost killed this movie for me. One was that all the fairy creatures were invited to the wedding, which was obviously a trap with the red powder already being hinted at, but the fact that the people didn't make as much a deal about it like they did when Maleficent came to dinner surprised me. I mean they had guards holding back the citizens but when Maleficent appeared they ran away, wouldn't they have acted similarly if there were monsters coming to their kingdom. The attack by the Dark Fey on the castle was also one of those parts that made me wonder what the hell was going on. They are massacred on a big scale by the red powder which earlier in the film, it said that it was hard to make or took a long time, but they had butt loads of it in this battle. They had so much that when the Dark Fey retreat and change where they attack the humans even had traps setup in those areas as well. I mean it made for an interesting intense battle scene but Maleficent was the only one of her kind the humans had ever seen and only the Queen's servant said she saw one similar to her save her from the water. How did they know an army was coming and attacking by air. Good planning, smart Queen I guess. I was greatly disappointed that Maleficent didn't turn into a dragon like the cartoon. I love seeing a good dragon on screen but I guess the Phoenix was a good change and fit more with the story especially with her sacrifice. Phoenix's are reborn from their ashes as it says. The last part I found to be laughable was that when the battle is over Aurora is like, "Weddings back on". Her and the Prince are like, we will live in peace from now on with the Moors. Ok, you were just killing each other a couple of minutes ago, and so many Dark Fey died it wasn't even funny. Oh yeah, this movie also did quite a great job of hiding any blood whatsoever in a lot of scenes where there probably should have been some maybe a little. I mean Maleficent gets shot, Connall gets shot up like swiss-cheese, and the soldiers are shooting in the final battle and everyone has weapons like axes, swords, etc.. I really wanted to give this movie a 7 but I have to give it a 6/10.
The beginning started off strong for this movie and it immediately reminded me of what i liked about the first one. Angelina Jolie is just magnificent as Maleficent and you can tell she really enjoys acting the part. I didn't really understand why the people feared her is she wasn't a bad guy (which was the point of the first one I thought, showing the story from her side), but apparently the Queen was spreading rumors or stories to make people frightened. At the dinner scene it was quite believable from Maleficent's outburst that she might have done something to the King but to me it was too out of character that Aurora would believe her to do something like that. Also it was too Deus Ex Machina for another Fey, Connall to have been around close enough for him to save Maleficent when she is shot by an iron bullet. I really liked the scene where they fly around the underground caverns where the other Fey live and show the different biomes and talk about her unkown heritage. It bothered me that the Queen had that little fairy guy that was doing the experiments for her on his own people and how that stuff could kill him too, but what bothered me more was that it never showed his motivations when he released the little creatures in the dungeon. It just showed him do it and never said why or what changed his mind, I feel like there might have been a scene cut there or something. And then there was a couple of ridiculous scenes for me that almost killed this movie for me. One was that all the fairy creatures were invited to the wedding, which was obviously a trap with the red powder already being hinted at, but the fact that the people didn't make as much a deal about it like they did when Maleficent came to dinner surprised me. I mean they had guards holding back the citizens but when Maleficent appeared they ran away, wouldn't they have acted similarly if there were monsters coming to their kingdom. The attack by the Dark Fey on the castle was also one of those parts that made me wonder what the hell was going on. They are massacred on a big scale by the red powder which earlier in the film, it said that it was hard to make or took a long time, but they had butt loads of it in this battle. They had so much that when the Dark Fey retreat and change where they attack the humans even had traps setup in those areas as well. I mean it made for an interesting intense battle scene but Maleficent was the only one of her kind the humans had ever seen and only the Queen's servant said she saw one similar to her save her from the water. How did they know an army was coming and attacking by air. Good planning, smart Queen I guess. I was greatly disappointed that Maleficent didn't turn into a dragon like the cartoon. I love seeing a good dragon on screen but I guess the Phoenix was a good change and fit more with the story especially with her sacrifice. Phoenix's are reborn from their ashes as it says. The last part I found to be laughable was that when the battle is over Aurora is like, "Weddings back on". Her and the Prince are like, we will live in peace from now on with the Moors. Ok, you were just killing each other a couple of minutes ago, and so many Dark Fey died it wasn't even funny. Oh yeah, this movie also did quite a great job of hiding any blood whatsoever in a lot of scenes where there probably should have been some maybe a little. I mean Maleficent gets shot, Connall gets shot up like swiss-cheese, and the soldiers are shooting in the final battle and everyone has weapons like axes, swords, etc.. I really wanted to give this movie a 7 but I have to give it a 6/10.