Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated 7500 (2019) in Movies
Jun 28, 2020
A 'small film' that packs a big punch
I'm not sure if there is an "IQ" table of Hollywood stars, but I would reckon if there is then Joseph Gordon-Levitt would rate pretty highly. Whenever I see him interviewed he comes across as a highly articulate and intelligent bloke. And that intelligence filters through into his choices of movie role. If you look back at his filmography on IMDB the first thing you notice is that his output is pretty sparse and selective, and the next is that the projects he's done mostly deliver a pretty strong hit rate: "500 Days of Summer"; "Inception", "Looper", "The Dark Knight Rises"; "Don Jon".... the list is impressive.
Here he stars (and really stars) in a small German film. It only had a $5 million budget and in some ways it shows: the speaking cast totals about a dozen; the single location used is the cockpit (an Airbus A320 simulator somewhere? Or a set? The production design is so good, it's difficult to tell) ; and the "score" is so minimalistic (a solo piano piece over the end titles) that it doesn't even merit an IMDB music credit!
But in many ways this is a case of 'small is beautiful'. For this is an extremely tense and claustrophobic action picture.
The Plot: German Captain Michael Lutzmann (Carlo Kitzlinger) and American Co-pilot Tobias Ellis (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are about to pilot an Airbus A320 on a routine flight from Berlin to Paris. By coincidence, also on the flight is Tobias's partner and mother of his son, stewardess Gökce (Aylin Tezel). Shortly into the flight, three terrorists - Kenan (Murathan Muslu), Daniel (Paul Wollin) and youngster Vedat (Omid Memar) - take over the aircraft. Tobias issues a "7500" (hijack in progress) code. All that is protecting the injured pilots and the security of the 80 people on the flight is the cockpit door.
The film starts slowly, building atmosphere through the pre-flight chit-chat between the pilots and a leisurely take-off. I loved this development of character by Oscar-nominated shorts director Patrick Vollrath. But when the action starts, it starts with a bang and continues in truly tense and visceral style. There's a sense of creeping dread when you realise the terrorist's use of hostages to get the door open, and of who the hostages might be.
I note that one of the "thanks" for the film was director Paul Greengrass, who of course made the outstanding 9/11-themed "United 93" back in 2006. It would be fascinating to understand whether this was a "thank-you" for the inspiration the classic film gave Vollrath, or if there was some practical consultancy undertaken there.
Star of the show here is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who delivers a peerless performance as the pilot under extreme stress. Veering cyclically through terror, emotional breakdown and calm 'training-kicking-in' modes, it's a performance that is almost Oscar nomination-worthy in my book. He's on screen for virtually every shot of the film, and really earned his fee here. He makes for a very believable pilot.
I've read other comment that says the terrorists are rather 2-dimensional in their attempts to "do a 9/11". And to a degree I agree. A nice angle though is the relationship that develops between Tobias and young Vedat in the second half of the movie. There's a 'Stockholm Syndrome' vibe going on here, but this never quite gets resolved satisfactorily.
As such, unfortunately this 'back 9' never really quite lived up to the promise of the first 45 minutes for me. And as a single-location story that had nowhere else to go, the abrupt ending will not be to the liking of some I'm sure.
Not to be confused with the 2014 horror "Flight 7500", this is for once a B-movie that's real nail-biter. The movie doesn't pull its punches, and although there is little of the more graphic violence actually shown, the mind can fill in the gaps effectively which makes for some upsetting moments. Although it never quite lives up to its early promise at only 93 minutes it is strongly deserving of your attention. The movie is available for viewing via Amazon-Prime.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/28/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-7500-2020/ .)
Here he stars (and really stars) in a small German film. It only had a $5 million budget and in some ways it shows: the speaking cast totals about a dozen; the single location used is the cockpit (an Airbus A320 simulator somewhere? Or a set? The production design is so good, it's difficult to tell) ; and the "score" is so minimalistic (a solo piano piece over the end titles) that it doesn't even merit an IMDB music credit!
But in many ways this is a case of 'small is beautiful'. For this is an extremely tense and claustrophobic action picture.
The Plot: German Captain Michael Lutzmann (Carlo Kitzlinger) and American Co-pilot Tobias Ellis (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are about to pilot an Airbus A320 on a routine flight from Berlin to Paris. By coincidence, also on the flight is Tobias's partner and mother of his son, stewardess Gökce (Aylin Tezel). Shortly into the flight, three terrorists - Kenan (Murathan Muslu), Daniel (Paul Wollin) and youngster Vedat (Omid Memar) - take over the aircraft. Tobias issues a "7500" (hijack in progress) code. All that is protecting the injured pilots and the security of the 80 people on the flight is the cockpit door.
The film starts slowly, building atmosphere through the pre-flight chit-chat between the pilots and a leisurely take-off. I loved this development of character by Oscar-nominated shorts director Patrick Vollrath. But when the action starts, it starts with a bang and continues in truly tense and visceral style. There's a sense of creeping dread when you realise the terrorist's use of hostages to get the door open, and of who the hostages might be.
I note that one of the "thanks" for the film was director Paul Greengrass, who of course made the outstanding 9/11-themed "United 93" back in 2006. It would be fascinating to understand whether this was a "thank-you" for the inspiration the classic film gave Vollrath, or if there was some practical consultancy undertaken there.
Star of the show here is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who delivers a peerless performance as the pilot under extreme stress. Veering cyclically through terror, emotional breakdown and calm 'training-kicking-in' modes, it's a performance that is almost Oscar nomination-worthy in my book. He's on screen for virtually every shot of the film, and really earned his fee here. He makes for a very believable pilot.
I've read other comment that says the terrorists are rather 2-dimensional in their attempts to "do a 9/11". And to a degree I agree. A nice angle though is the relationship that develops between Tobias and young Vedat in the second half of the movie. There's a 'Stockholm Syndrome' vibe going on here, but this never quite gets resolved satisfactorily.
As such, unfortunately this 'back 9' never really quite lived up to the promise of the first 45 minutes for me. And as a single-location story that had nowhere else to go, the abrupt ending will not be to the liking of some I'm sure.
Not to be confused with the 2014 horror "Flight 7500", this is for once a B-movie that's real nail-biter. The movie doesn't pull its punches, and although there is little of the more graphic violence actually shown, the mind can fill in the gaps effectively which makes for some upsetting moments. Although it never quite lives up to its early promise at only 93 minutes it is strongly deserving of your attention. The movie is available for viewing via Amazon-Prime.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/28/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-7500-2020/ .)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Witches (2020) in Movies
Mar 6, 2021
Not a patch on the original
The Witches is a 2020 retelling of the Roald Dahl children’s story, from director Robert Zemeckis. Remakes and reboots have been commonplace in the movies for quite some time, so it’s no surprise that The Witches has been given a Hollywood makeover, especially as it has been 30 years since the original film adaptation was released in 1990. I will readily admit that the original film is a childhood favourite, so this remake has very big shows to fill.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Peaks and Valleys (2020) in Movies
Apr 29, 2021
Acting of the two leads (2 more)
Cinematography of the beautiful Alaskan wilderness
Script and direction both good
Two strangers forced to over-winter in Alaskan wilderness
In “Peaks and Valleys”, Jack (Kevin T. Bennett) is living as a recluse in a remote cabin in Alaska. His solitude is rudely interrupted by a plane which drops a naked, trussed-up and drugged-up girl into his lake. Traumatised by her experiences, the girl (Bailey, played by Kitty Mahoney) is unwilling to trust the man. But trust him she must, since they are in the Alaskan wilderness and Jack tells her that the supply plane might not come for a couple of months.
How and why was Bailey dumped from the plane? Why is Jack living all alone in the wilderness, and why is he packing a hand-gun? As tempers fray, can the pair survive each other’s company? All intriguing questions that demand answers.
Positives:
- Although it’s only a low-budget Indie-film, it has an intriguing premise that packs a punch above its weight. Since although the story is told in a linear way, the script includes ‘asides’ – told either through imagined conversations or dreams – that create a jigsaw of questions for the viewer. And the dynamic between Jack and Bailey develops in an interesting way. Overall, I was intrigued to see how the questions raised would pan out.
- I’m often disappointed that the acting in these types of Indie films is below par. To a large degree, this is not the case here. Kevin Bennett is very believable as the crusty old backwoodsman. And Kitty Mahoney, in her movie debut, delivers a smashing performance. She has real screen-presence. I’m not sure if this was a “one off” for her, or if she intends to pursue an acting career: but I really hope it’s the latter.
- Another star of the show is the dramatic Alaskan landscapes, lovingly photographed by cinematographer Bryan Pentecostes. Some of the shots are just “double-WOW”! The movie is a wonderful piece of PR for the Alaskan Tourist Board, for sure.
- Michael Dillon’s script avoids clichés and lazy wins. It would be an easy plot point to see the vulnerable young Bailey sexually exploited by the older man. But very much on topic, following the debate around “Promising Young Woman” and earning the film a welcome #notallmen hashtag, Jack makes it abundantly clear that this is not a route we’re going to go down.
- The clever script also has some nice lines that resonate: “We can’t change the wrong that’s been done to us.” growls Jack, “But we’re damned if we don’t let it change us”. But amongst the philosophical sound-bytes, the script also finds time to have some light-hearted fun at times. A nice scene to emphasise the growing relationship and mutual respect between the pair is when Jack teaches Bailey to ice-fish. Jack examines Bailey’s amateurish efforts. “It ain’t the prettiest hole, but I’d stick my pole in it” he says. “I bet you say that to all the girls” quips back Bailey.
- I enjoyed the music by Evan Evans very much too. There’s also a nice song over the end credits by Gregory Alan Isakov as well.
- Finally, a special shout-out to Garrett Martin for some very well done and quease-inducing injury make-up.
Negatives:
- For all the good aspects about the script, there are a few times, particularly early on in Jack and Bailey’s relationship, where I found the exchanges between them forced and unconvincing. This was sometimes down to the script, and sometimes down to over-stretching the acting abilities of the cast.
- The dramatic finale – although surprising and satisfying – relies on some rather unbelievable timing.
Summary Thoughts: When I start watching a low-budget Indie film, I tend to set my expectations accordingly. Often the acting is naff; the script will be hand-gnawingly awful; and/or the production values are found wanting. I was really pleasantly surprised that this movie ticked the “none of the above” box. And yes, there were a few rough edges here and there, but I’ve seen multi-million pound Hollywood blockbusters that were far worse. Michael Burns has delivered a tight and intriguing movie that sensibly sticks to a 96 minute run time, such that I was never bored.
I really enjoyed this one and recommend it. And you only need to fork out a few quid to rent it on Amazon. If you do, I’d be interested in your views.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/29/peaks-and-valleys-two-strangers-forced-to-over-winter-in-the-alaskan-wilderness/. Thanks).
How and why was Bailey dumped from the plane? Why is Jack living all alone in the wilderness, and why is he packing a hand-gun? As tempers fray, can the pair survive each other’s company? All intriguing questions that demand answers.
Positives:
- Although it’s only a low-budget Indie-film, it has an intriguing premise that packs a punch above its weight. Since although the story is told in a linear way, the script includes ‘asides’ – told either through imagined conversations or dreams – that create a jigsaw of questions for the viewer. And the dynamic between Jack and Bailey develops in an interesting way. Overall, I was intrigued to see how the questions raised would pan out.
- I’m often disappointed that the acting in these types of Indie films is below par. To a large degree, this is not the case here. Kevin Bennett is very believable as the crusty old backwoodsman. And Kitty Mahoney, in her movie debut, delivers a smashing performance. She has real screen-presence. I’m not sure if this was a “one off” for her, or if she intends to pursue an acting career: but I really hope it’s the latter.
- Another star of the show is the dramatic Alaskan landscapes, lovingly photographed by cinematographer Bryan Pentecostes. Some of the shots are just “double-WOW”! The movie is a wonderful piece of PR for the Alaskan Tourist Board, for sure.
- Michael Dillon’s script avoids clichés and lazy wins. It would be an easy plot point to see the vulnerable young Bailey sexually exploited by the older man. But very much on topic, following the debate around “Promising Young Woman” and earning the film a welcome #notallmen hashtag, Jack makes it abundantly clear that this is not a route we’re going to go down.
- The clever script also has some nice lines that resonate: “We can’t change the wrong that’s been done to us.” growls Jack, “But we’re damned if we don’t let it change us”. But amongst the philosophical sound-bytes, the script also finds time to have some light-hearted fun at times. A nice scene to emphasise the growing relationship and mutual respect between the pair is when Jack teaches Bailey to ice-fish. Jack examines Bailey’s amateurish efforts. “It ain’t the prettiest hole, but I’d stick my pole in it” he says. “I bet you say that to all the girls” quips back Bailey.
- I enjoyed the music by Evan Evans very much too. There’s also a nice song over the end credits by Gregory Alan Isakov as well.
- Finally, a special shout-out to Garrett Martin for some very well done and quease-inducing injury make-up.
Negatives:
- For all the good aspects about the script, there are a few times, particularly early on in Jack and Bailey’s relationship, where I found the exchanges between them forced and unconvincing. This was sometimes down to the script, and sometimes down to over-stretching the acting abilities of the cast.
- The dramatic finale – although surprising and satisfying – relies on some rather unbelievable timing.
Summary Thoughts: When I start watching a low-budget Indie film, I tend to set my expectations accordingly. Often the acting is naff; the script will be hand-gnawingly awful; and/or the production values are found wanting. I was really pleasantly surprised that this movie ticked the “none of the above” box. And yes, there were a few rough edges here and there, but I’ve seen multi-million pound Hollywood blockbusters that were far worse. Michael Burns has delivered a tight and intriguing movie that sensibly sticks to a 96 minute run time, such that I was never bored.
I really enjoyed this one and recommend it. And you only need to fork out a few quid to rent it on Amazon. If you do, I’d be interested in your views.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/29/peaks-and-valleys-two-strangers-forced-to-over-winter-in-the-alaskan-wilderness/. Thanks).
Top Girl Parking Story: Fashion Driving School
Games and Sports
App
Girls, are you ready for fun? Cuteness overload! This game is dedicated for you! Girl Driving &...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Not the 5* French classic, but a fun and moving movie nonetheless.
So, the movie-going audience for this film will divide into two categories:
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Pitch Perfect 3 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Aca-bysmal.
Mr Plot and Miss Tale were teenage sweethearts. They met at Storyville High School and inseparable, but were viciously cursed by a jealous school nurse, bitter from a recent split. Notwithstanding this setback, they realised that they were soul-mates, got engaged and were married in the following summer. Everyone wished them well, and spoke of the time when the sound of little Plots would ring out around their new house. Unfortunately, however hard they tried, no little Plot arrived. The ancient curse of the school nurse rang in their ears. They paid to see the most expensive doctors on Harley Street, but noone could help them. It turned out that not only was Mrs Plot infertile, but so was Mr Plot. It was hopeless, and because of an unfortunate conviction for marujiana possession in Mr Plot’s teenage years they couldn’t even adapt, sorry, adopt a little Plot from someone else. So they lived together with sadness and bitterness building up inside them. Would the curse ever be lifted? Would they work through their differences to find new purpose in life? Or would they part acromoniously with Mrs Plot joining a convent to sing mournful songs of grief and missed opportunities in the Swiss Alps? TO… BE…CONTINUED.
There. You were there, weren’t you? Living it. You want to know what happens next? Sure you do. You see, even I can come up with a story…. and I’m not a “professional Hollywood scriptwriter”.
Why then, I ask you. Why oh why oh why oh why oh why do the scriptwriters of Pitch Perfect 3 – Kay Cannon (the original PP screenwriter) and Mike White (“The Emoji Movie”) – think that this dreadfully lazy set of loosely connected scenes represent a viable basis for a movie? Is the view from the guys who green-lit this thing that the crowd that loved “Pitch Perfect” and the pretty dreadful sequel “Pitch Perfect 2” will pay their box office money regardless? Let’s advertise the hell out of it and cash in our chips before word of mouth gets out!?
In this ‘adventure’ the Bellas go on a US Forces overseas tour (though this is not really explained until they suddenly appear in Spain – what? how?). The really REALLY annoying commentators John (John Michael Higgins) and Gail (Elizabeth Banks, “Love and Mercy“) tag along, filming some lame half-arsed documentary about them until even the scriptwriters get fed up of that tedious plot-line and it quietly withers on the vine.
Fat Amy (is this still an acceptable nickname in 2017?) also runs into her nefarious father again after many years (John Lithgow, “Interstellar“, “Daddy’s Home 2“). Lithgow – sporting a wonderful Australian accent – is about the best thing in the film. The “plot” (sorry, I can barely bring myself to use that word) revolves around Daddy trying to get something of Amy’s that he needs, for reasons – given the yacht he sails – that makes no sense whatsoever. Will he succeed? Will the Bellas get selected to headline with DJ Khaled (who is apparently a thing, but I’ve never heard him on BBC Radio 2)? Does anyone really care?
As my wife pointed out, it’s a bit unfortunate that the only Bellas who are not stick-thin size zeroes are the obese and annoyingly loud one, the black lesbian one and two that nobody knows why they are there. The message to the target female teen audience is clear: if you want to be “in” you’d better diet… hard. Nice.
Looking for all the world like sticks of candy-cane. The size 0 Bellas.
What can I say that’s vaguely nice about this monstrosity?
Some of the acapella song and dance numbers are fun enough, particularly “Toxic” that opens the film;
The closing number by Anna Kendrick (“Table 19“) is quite appealing;
There are also about 5 funny lines that made me smile: not laugh… smile;
It’s also a relief that John and Gail, unlike in “Pitch Perfect 2“, only come out with one xenophobic/racist comment in the film (and that’s about the French, so that hardly counts 🙂 ).
And I’m out…
There will be no doubt die-hard teenage fans who will love this one too. But my wife was a great fan of the first film (as indeed was I); she tolerated the second one; but even she declared this to be “Aca-Awful”. It’s not as toxically dreadful as “Dirty Grandpa“… what could be? But, seriously, life is too short for this.
There. You were there, weren’t you? Living it. You want to know what happens next? Sure you do. You see, even I can come up with a story…. and I’m not a “professional Hollywood scriptwriter”.
Why then, I ask you. Why oh why oh why oh why oh why do the scriptwriters of Pitch Perfect 3 – Kay Cannon (the original PP screenwriter) and Mike White (“The Emoji Movie”) – think that this dreadfully lazy set of loosely connected scenes represent a viable basis for a movie? Is the view from the guys who green-lit this thing that the crowd that loved “Pitch Perfect” and the pretty dreadful sequel “Pitch Perfect 2” will pay their box office money regardless? Let’s advertise the hell out of it and cash in our chips before word of mouth gets out!?
In this ‘adventure’ the Bellas go on a US Forces overseas tour (though this is not really explained until they suddenly appear in Spain – what? how?). The really REALLY annoying commentators John (John Michael Higgins) and Gail (Elizabeth Banks, “Love and Mercy“) tag along, filming some lame half-arsed documentary about them until even the scriptwriters get fed up of that tedious plot-line and it quietly withers on the vine.
Fat Amy (is this still an acceptable nickname in 2017?) also runs into her nefarious father again after many years (John Lithgow, “Interstellar“, “Daddy’s Home 2“). Lithgow – sporting a wonderful Australian accent – is about the best thing in the film. The “plot” (sorry, I can barely bring myself to use that word) revolves around Daddy trying to get something of Amy’s that he needs, for reasons – given the yacht he sails – that makes no sense whatsoever. Will he succeed? Will the Bellas get selected to headline with DJ Khaled (who is apparently a thing, but I’ve never heard him on BBC Radio 2)? Does anyone really care?
As my wife pointed out, it’s a bit unfortunate that the only Bellas who are not stick-thin size zeroes are the obese and annoyingly loud one, the black lesbian one and two that nobody knows why they are there. The message to the target female teen audience is clear: if you want to be “in” you’d better diet… hard. Nice.
Looking for all the world like sticks of candy-cane. The size 0 Bellas.
What can I say that’s vaguely nice about this monstrosity?
Some of the acapella song and dance numbers are fun enough, particularly “Toxic” that opens the film;
The closing number by Anna Kendrick (“Table 19“) is quite appealing;
There are also about 5 funny lines that made me smile: not laugh… smile;
It’s also a relief that John and Gail, unlike in “Pitch Perfect 2“, only come out with one xenophobic/racist comment in the film (and that’s about the French, so that hardly counts 🙂 ).
And I’m out…
There will be no doubt die-hard teenage fans who will love this one too. But my wife was a great fan of the first film (as indeed was I); she tolerated the second one; but even she declared this to be “Aca-Awful”. It’s not as toxically dreadful as “Dirty Grandpa“… what could be? But, seriously, life is too short for this.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A soft reboot that actually works
1987; feels like a long time ago doesn’t it? In fact, most of you reading this I imagine weren’t even born way back in the late 80s. I mean, I was only a twinkle in my parents’ eyes at that time. But I digress.
What’s so special about 1987? Well, it was the year that Arnold Schwarzenegger kicked serious alien butt in the first Predator movie. Of course, the franchise’s now infamous fall from grace is the stuff of legend, and along with Alien, the original remains a true high point in the sci-fi horror genre.
Rebooted for 2018 with Iron Man 3 director Shane Black at the helm, The Predator aims to revitalise the public’s interest in this flagging horror franchise. Looking at Shane Black’s unusual resume, he seems a strange choice to take charge here, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But just how good, or bad, is The Predator?
From the outer reaches of space to the small-town streets of suburbia, the hunt comes home. The universe’s most lethal hunters are stronger, smarter and deadlier than ever before, having genetically upgraded themselves with DNA from other species. When a boy accidentally triggers their return to Earth, only a ragtag crew of ex-soldiers and an evolutionary biologist can prevent the end of the human race.
The aforementioned ragtag crew of ex-soldiers includes Boyd Holbrook, a vastly underused presence in last year’s Logan, that thankfully receives much higher billing here. Trevante Rhodes, Keegan-Michael Key, Thomas Jane and Augusto Aguilera make up the rest of the team and whilst their backstories are limited to one scene on a bus, they feel fleshed out enough to carry the film.
Less successful is Olivia Munn’s Casey Bracket. Biologist and when required by the screenwriters, experienced military personnel, she’s probably the most badass biologist you’ll see on screen this decade, when the script requires it of course.
Finally, we have the ridiculously talented Jacob Tremblay as Holbrooks son, Rory. His subplot which surrounds his daily struggles with autism is poorly realised but should be praised for bringing awareness to the condition in a mainstream Hollywood film.
Thankfully, Shane Black injects his trademark dark humour throughout and surprisingly, it works better than I had anticipated. The jokes are well-placed across the running time and each one manages to at least raise a titter.
Now let’s get to the part everyone reading this is interested in; the Predator’s return. Portrayed by stuntman Brian A. Prince, this Predator is virtually identical to the 1987 original in every way. And that’s a good thing, because when the 11ft hybrid shows up, it spoils the party a little. Rendered in CGI, rather than practical effects, its movements are a little too fluid and lack that sense of realism you get with a real man in a suit. The addition of the Predator Dogs however is an inspired choice and they work well despite some sloppy CG at times.
The Predator is a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards
Nevertheless, the film is shot very well and the copious amounts of gore are both restrained and animalistic. It earns its 15 rating most definitely as the Predator works its way through a massive number of victims, but it never crosses the line in which you’d have people saying ‘enough is enough’.
The special effects are on the whole, very good indeed. Considering a relatively modest $88million budget, there are only a few instances of poor CGI and the practical effects used throughout are a nice touch. It’s a shame then that there are some case of poor editing in the film however. A couple of character decisions will leave you scratching your head as you wonder how on earth our band of heroes managed to figure out certain problems.
But this is very much fan service to the original and for that, you’ll either love or hate it. There are many references to its predecessors, some subtle, some smack you in the face obvious. The classic Arnie line “get to the chopper” is there, but that’s definitely in the latter camp, and it’s one reference that doesn’t quite hit the spot.
Overall, The Predator is definitely the best film since the original, although that really isn’t saying much. And that’s a little bit of a disservice to what Shane black and the cast has managed to achieve. It’s a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards. Is it a horror movie like the original was classed to be? Absolutely not. But it’s worth a watch for both Predator fans and those looking to scratch their sci-fi itch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/09/14/the-predator-review-a-soft-reboot-that-actually-works/
What’s so special about 1987? Well, it was the year that Arnold Schwarzenegger kicked serious alien butt in the first Predator movie. Of course, the franchise’s now infamous fall from grace is the stuff of legend, and along with Alien, the original remains a true high point in the sci-fi horror genre.
Rebooted for 2018 with Iron Man 3 director Shane Black at the helm, The Predator aims to revitalise the public’s interest in this flagging horror franchise. Looking at Shane Black’s unusual resume, he seems a strange choice to take charge here, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. But just how good, or bad, is The Predator?
From the outer reaches of space to the small-town streets of suburbia, the hunt comes home. The universe’s most lethal hunters are stronger, smarter and deadlier than ever before, having genetically upgraded themselves with DNA from other species. When a boy accidentally triggers their return to Earth, only a ragtag crew of ex-soldiers and an evolutionary biologist can prevent the end of the human race.
The aforementioned ragtag crew of ex-soldiers includes Boyd Holbrook, a vastly underused presence in last year’s Logan, that thankfully receives much higher billing here. Trevante Rhodes, Keegan-Michael Key, Thomas Jane and Augusto Aguilera make up the rest of the team and whilst their backstories are limited to one scene on a bus, they feel fleshed out enough to carry the film.
Less successful is Olivia Munn’s Casey Bracket. Biologist and when required by the screenwriters, experienced military personnel, she’s probably the most badass biologist you’ll see on screen this decade, when the script requires it of course.
Finally, we have the ridiculously talented Jacob Tremblay as Holbrooks son, Rory. His subplot which surrounds his daily struggles with autism is poorly realised but should be praised for bringing awareness to the condition in a mainstream Hollywood film.
Thankfully, Shane Black injects his trademark dark humour throughout and surprisingly, it works better than I had anticipated. The jokes are well-placed across the running time and each one manages to at least raise a titter.
Now let’s get to the part everyone reading this is interested in; the Predator’s return. Portrayed by stuntman Brian A. Prince, this Predator is virtually identical to the 1987 original in every way. And that’s a good thing, because when the 11ft hybrid shows up, it spoils the party a little. Rendered in CGI, rather than practical effects, its movements are a little too fluid and lack that sense of realism you get with a real man in a suit. The addition of the Predator Dogs however is an inspired choice and they work well despite some sloppy CG at times.
The Predator is a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards
Nevertheless, the film is shot very well and the copious amounts of gore are both restrained and animalistic. It earns its 15 rating most definitely as the Predator works its way through a massive number of victims, but it never crosses the line in which you’d have people saying ‘enough is enough’.
The special effects are on the whole, very good indeed. Considering a relatively modest $88million budget, there are only a few instances of poor CGI and the practical effects used throughout are a nice touch. It’s a shame then that there are some case of poor editing in the film however. A couple of character decisions will leave you scratching your head as you wonder how on earth our band of heroes managed to figure out certain problems.
But this is very much fan service to the original and for that, you’ll either love or hate it. There are many references to its predecessors, some subtle, some smack you in the face obvious. The classic Arnie line “get to the chopper” is there, but that’s definitely in the latter camp, and it’s one reference that doesn’t quite hit the spot.
Overall, The Predator is definitely the best film since the original, although that really isn’t saying much. And that’s a little bit of a disservice to what Shane black and the cast has managed to achieve. It’s a confident film with a cracking sense of humour, good special effects and just enough call-backs to please series diehards. Is it a horror movie like the original was classed to be? Absolutely not. But it’s worth a watch for both Predator fans and those looking to scratch their sci-fi itch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/09/14/the-predator-review-a-soft-reboot-that-actually-works/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Mar 22, 2018 (Updated Mar 22, 2018)
An Uninspired Take On the Iconic Character
This is the greatest video game movie ever made.
Now, I know what you are thinking, "Dan, you scored this thing a 6, you can't open your review with a statement like that!" Well the thing is, every other video game movie is so shit, that this mediocre action adventure flick is the gold standard in comparison.
If you played the 2013 Tomb Raider reboot game, then you will see a lot of similarities here, except most of it isn't done as well as it was done in the game. First of all, they spend far too much time following Lara in London before she goes on her adventure. For some reason she lives a poor life as a delivery girl that can't even afford to pay her gym membership, even though she has a massive fortune of inheritance money sitting there, that is hers once she signs off on her father's death certificate. Her dad is played by Dominic West, who is one of my favourite actors, but unfortunately he is kind of wasted here. He went missing seven years ago and is the catalyst for Lara's adventure to begin.
So she goes to Thailand to look for the guy that her dad bought the boat from to go to the remote island with the treasure on it. The guy she finds from Into The Badlands, turns out to be his son and he agrees to help her for some cash. He is actually pretty enjoyable in the movie and probably does a better job selling his character than his Oscar winning co-star, but we will get back to that later. So the two of them go to this remote island and a storm hits the boat, forcing the two of them overboard. Lara wakes up with Walton Goggins' character Mathias holding her at gun point. Mathias is nothing like he was in the game, where he was a mad priest type character, here he is a tired faithless mercenary that just wants to get the job done and go home. Walton Goggins, who again is one of my favourite actors, does his best with the material that he is giving, the issue being that the material is pretty garbage, which is the case for this movie's script in general. From here, Lara goes through the motions of becoming more of a badass survivor. This leads us into some exciting action set pieces that call back to the original game and are probably the best parts of the movie, so I won't spoil them here.
Let's talk about Alicia Vikander as Lara Croft. I have liked Alicia Vikander in every other role that I have seen her in and I was looking forward to seeing her performance as this iconic character. However, she just doesn't sell the character for me. I'm not sure if it's the material that the filmmakers gave her to work with, but she is totally underwhelming and never defines the character in any major way or makes it her own. You could have cast any young actress in this role and you would have gotten the same result. The other rumoured names before Vikander was officially cast were Emelia Clarke and Daisey Ridley. Any one of those would yielded the exact same results meaning that while Vikander was perfectly serviceable, she brought nothing special or original to the role.
Next I want to cover some of the movie's technical elements. The special effects were actually pretty impressive overall. The CGI backdrops all looked pretty convincing and even the character animation that was sprinkled in here and there looked pretty good and didn't distract or take me out of the movie too much. However, everything else was totally unremarkable. From the direction, to the lighting, to the cinematography, to the score, it was all just passable and nothing more.
Before I conclude this review, I want to briefly touch on something that this movie does that I hate seeing in movies. For some reason this movie repeatedly shows us flashbacks of something that happened just minutes beforehand. It is so frustrating and totally breaks the pace of the movie. It also feels as if the filmmakers are treating their audience like complete idiots that can't piece their predictable plot together without explicitly spelling it out by showing us the same flashback for the fourth time. Hollywood please stop doing this, it totally breaks any flow that your movie almost had and is so painfully unnecessary it hurts, give us some credit as moviegoers.
Overall, this is a decent action adventure romp that works okay if you don't think about it too much. It isn't anything special in any way and doesn't do anything that hasn't been done better by another franchise before. You will have a decent time with this as long as you don't expect something that is going to bring the video game movie into legendary status.
Now, I know what you are thinking, "Dan, you scored this thing a 6, you can't open your review with a statement like that!" Well the thing is, every other video game movie is so shit, that this mediocre action adventure flick is the gold standard in comparison.
If you played the 2013 Tomb Raider reboot game, then you will see a lot of similarities here, except most of it isn't done as well as it was done in the game. First of all, they spend far too much time following Lara in London before she goes on her adventure. For some reason she lives a poor life as a delivery girl that can't even afford to pay her gym membership, even though she has a massive fortune of inheritance money sitting there, that is hers once she signs off on her father's death certificate. Her dad is played by Dominic West, who is one of my favourite actors, but unfortunately he is kind of wasted here. He went missing seven years ago and is the catalyst for Lara's adventure to begin.
So she goes to Thailand to look for the guy that her dad bought the boat from to go to the remote island with the treasure on it. The guy she finds from Into The Badlands, turns out to be his son and he agrees to help her for some cash. He is actually pretty enjoyable in the movie and probably does a better job selling his character than his Oscar winning co-star, but we will get back to that later. So the two of them go to this remote island and a storm hits the boat, forcing the two of them overboard. Lara wakes up with Walton Goggins' character Mathias holding her at gun point. Mathias is nothing like he was in the game, where he was a mad priest type character, here he is a tired faithless mercenary that just wants to get the job done and go home. Walton Goggins, who again is one of my favourite actors, does his best with the material that he is giving, the issue being that the material is pretty garbage, which is the case for this movie's script in general. From here, Lara goes through the motions of becoming more of a badass survivor. This leads us into some exciting action set pieces that call back to the original game and are probably the best parts of the movie, so I won't spoil them here.
Let's talk about Alicia Vikander as Lara Croft. I have liked Alicia Vikander in every other role that I have seen her in and I was looking forward to seeing her performance as this iconic character. However, she just doesn't sell the character for me. I'm not sure if it's the material that the filmmakers gave her to work with, but she is totally underwhelming and never defines the character in any major way or makes it her own. You could have cast any young actress in this role and you would have gotten the same result. The other rumoured names before Vikander was officially cast were Emelia Clarke and Daisey Ridley. Any one of those would yielded the exact same results meaning that while Vikander was perfectly serviceable, she brought nothing special or original to the role.
Next I want to cover some of the movie's technical elements. The special effects were actually pretty impressive overall. The CGI backdrops all looked pretty convincing and even the character animation that was sprinkled in here and there looked pretty good and didn't distract or take me out of the movie too much. However, everything else was totally unremarkable. From the direction, to the lighting, to the cinematography, to the score, it was all just passable and nothing more.
Before I conclude this review, I want to briefly touch on something that this movie does that I hate seeing in movies. For some reason this movie repeatedly shows us flashbacks of something that happened just minutes beforehand. It is so frustrating and totally breaks the pace of the movie. It also feels as if the filmmakers are treating their audience like complete idiots that can't piece their predictable plot together without explicitly spelling it out by showing us the same flashback for the fourth time. Hollywood please stop doing this, it totally breaks any flow that your movie almost had and is so painfully unnecessary it hurts, give us some credit as moviegoers.
Overall, this is a decent action adventure romp that works okay if you don't think about it too much. It isn't anything special in any way and doesn't do anything that hasn't been done better by another franchise before. You will have a decent time with this as long as you don't expect something that is going to bring the video game movie into legendary status.