Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Wolverine (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In 2009, we were treated to the origin story for one of Marvel’s most beloved characters: The Wolverine. Enthusiasm for the story turned to discord and malcontent for most, but if you had the ability to look past the inadequacies found in most Marvel silver-screen adaptations (as I did), then at least you would have enjoyed seeing the comic come to life.
Here in 2013, Hugh Jackman reprises his role for the 6th time, making his way to Japan to bring about one of the community’s favorite portions of the mythos: the way of the samurai, Muriko, and the Silver Samurai.
The story opens with the bombing of Nagasaki, and Logan’s survival of the atrocity. He saves a Japanese soldier from suicide, and then from the Atomic Bomb.
Fast forward to the present and we have a broken mountain man that was once Logan (Jackman). He lives in the hills, away from people, because he no longer wants to be a soldier. His immortality has become a curse.
After a rousing row with some local hunters, a representative for Yashida (the aforementioned Japanese soldier) talks Logan into going back to Japan to pay his respects to a dying man.
The story spins away from there on a turbulent ride that is equal parts drama and action.
Let’s get to my thoughts.
—————The good ———————-
The cinematography, script, acting, and editing was top-notch. The sets, costumes, effects, stunts and fight scenes were all pleasurably executed. This was a very well-made movie.
—————-The bad ————————
The plot holes were too numerous to be anything but amazingly distracting. Without giving too much away, here are just a few:
During a ceremony, in broad day light, on a huge roof, one of the main secondary characters is lurking. With as many people and security, this was HIGHLY implausible. Laughable, at best.
Ninjas are not a real thing, and they never were. They were a fable; a story told without any factual, historical basis, and their presence cheapened the film.
When the A-bomb was dropped, those who survived the actual explosion still died to the radiation within a certain range. There is no way Yashida would have survived Nagasaki the way the event was portrayed in the film.
At some point, Wolverine loses his ability to heal. It’s never clear if his regenerative powers are fully gone or just suppressed, but he can’t heal well enough to stop bleeding. With this in mind, his survival of so many shots to the body is extremely questionable.
On that same note: if he can’t heal, how did the holes made by the blades extruding from his hands heal up? After every scene in which the blades come out, his hands remain free of blood or marks.
Wolverine was clearly killing people with his claws, which I liked, but there should have been far more limb and torso severing, given how sharp his adamantium blades are and how overwhelmingly strong he is supposed to be.
The Wolverine character has an unmatched sense of smell, but it was never used in the movie, not even once. The opportunity presented itself multiple times.
These are just a few examples, and there were many more jarring discrepancies. There were so many that it detracted from the movie in an unforgivable way. Even this was totally separate from the comic-to-silver-screen transition, for which those remarks are better left to someone more learned in the comic realm.
The part I enjoyed the most came during the last 30 seconds of the film, as part of the credits. It sets up a future film. Enjoy.
All in all, The Wolverine was great. That said, if you have a critical eye, like myself, you will find many faults.
Here in 2013, Hugh Jackman reprises his role for the 6th time, making his way to Japan to bring about one of the community’s favorite portions of the mythos: the way of the samurai, Muriko, and the Silver Samurai.
The story opens with the bombing of Nagasaki, and Logan’s survival of the atrocity. He saves a Japanese soldier from suicide, and then from the Atomic Bomb.
Fast forward to the present and we have a broken mountain man that was once Logan (Jackman). He lives in the hills, away from people, because he no longer wants to be a soldier. His immortality has become a curse.
After a rousing row with some local hunters, a representative for Yashida (the aforementioned Japanese soldier) talks Logan into going back to Japan to pay his respects to a dying man.
The story spins away from there on a turbulent ride that is equal parts drama and action.
Let’s get to my thoughts.
—————The good ———————-
The cinematography, script, acting, and editing was top-notch. The sets, costumes, effects, stunts and fight scenes were all pleasurably executed. This was a very well-made movie.
—————-The bad ————————
The plot holes were too numerous to be anything but amazingly distracting. Without giving too much away, here are just a few:
During a ceremony, in broad day light, on a huge roof, one of the main secondary characters is lurking. With as many people and security, this was HIGHLY implausible. Laughable, at best.
Ninjas are not a real thing, and they never were. They were a fable; a story told without any factual, historical basis, and their presence cheapened the film.
When the A-bomb was dropped, those who survived the actual explosion still died to the radiation within a certain range. There is no way Yashida would have survived Nagasaki the way the event was portrayed in the film.
At some point, Wolverine loses his ability to heal. It’s never clear if his regenerative powers are fully gone or just suppressed, but he can’t heal well enough to stop bleeding. With this in mind, his survival of so many shots to the body is extremely questionable.
On that same note: if he can’t heal, how did the holes made by the blades extruding from his hands heal up? After every scene in which the blades come out, his hands remain free of blood or marks.
Wolverine was clearly killing people with his claws, which I liked, but there should have been far more limb and torso severing, given how sharp his adamantium blades are and how overwhelmingly strong he is supposed to be.
The Wolverine character has an unmatched sense of smell, but it was never used in the movie, not even once. The opportunity presented itself multiple times.
These are just a few examples, and there were many more jarring discrepancies. There were so many that it detracted from the movie in an unforgivable way. Even this was totally separate from the comic-to-silver-screen transition, for which those remarks are better left to someone more learned in the comic realm.
The part I enjoyed the most came during the last 30 seconds of the film, as part of the credits. It sets up a future film. Enjoy.
All in all, The Wolverine was great. That said, if you have a critical eye, like myself, you will find many faults.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Apr 5, 2021
At over 4 hours it's still bloated and sprawling (1 more)
4:3 ratio is a needless gimmick
Does Lipstick on the Pig work?
In Zack Snyder’s much-discussed director’s cut of “Justice League”, Superman (Henry Cavill) is dead (post the events of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and a grieving Lois Lane (Amy Adams) can’t move on. Even Martha Kent (Diane Lane) has had the family farm repossessed. But the world is in deadly danger due to the work of Steppenwolf and his army of parademons. They are trying to reunite three ‘Mother Boxes’, previously hidden on earth. If joined and synchronized they will form ‘The Unity’, creating a gateway for Steppenwolf’s boss – Darkseid – to arrive and control the universe by invoking the “anti-life equation” (basically lockdown 3!).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Green Knight (2020) in Movies
Aug 6, 2021
Interesting...Intriguing...and Weird
You have 2 choices when choosing to view the Arthurian tale THE GREEN KNIGHT.
1). Brush up on the 14th Century tale (writer unknown) about Sir Gawain (of Knights of the Round Table fame) and The Green Knight
2). Go in “blind” and let the film wash over you.
I did #2 and while I got the “gist” of what was going on, I missed some of the subtleties (or the attempted subtleties) that I now know since I went on-line and brushed up on the story/poem (no, I did not read the 14th century poem - a google search synopsis of plot of the poem was sufficient).
Starring Dev Patel (more on him later) THE GREEN KNIGHT tells the story of a would-be Knight of the Round Table, Gawain, who accepts a challenge of THE GREEN KNIGHT and now must stand up to the consequence of his deeds while heading off on a quest.
Dev Patel (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE) has really grown into a fine actor and he is perfectly cast as the courage-challenged Gawain. He walks through this film with a slight look of fear in his eyes and I was finding myself yelling at him (in my head) to “stand up and do what’s right” (which is the point of the film/story) when he would make the wrong decision.
Alicia Vikander (who I have not seen on screen since 2018’s TOMB RAIDER) and Joel Edgerton (LOVING) are 2 of the people that Gawain meets along the way and they bring strength and star power to the middle part of this film - they came along at an opportune time, for this film was beginning to sag under it’s own weight at that point, but these 2 help propel Gawain (and the film) to the climax.
Director David Lowery (A GHOST STORY) has crafted a fantastical film that reminded me very much of the work of Terry Gilliam - and I mean that as a compliment. He heightens every scene with imagery that’s just “off” (again, I mean that as a compliment) that symbolizes the “quest” that Gawain is on.
He also does something that will either encourage or discourage a viewer (and that is the strength and weakness of this film) - he explains nothing.
For example…at the beginning, Gawain is sitting at a round table with a King and Queen and a bunch of other Knights (or would be Knights). One would assume that this is King Arthur, Guinevere and the Knights of the Round Table, but Lowery never calls them by name. “The King” pulls out his sword and hands it to Gawain for his contest with the Green Knight. The crowd reacts with gasps - one would assume that this is the fable sword Excaliber, but it is never stated.
So…knowing these things (and some of the other aspects of the Gawain) story, might further enrich this experience, but Lowery chooses to not spoon feed the audience and since I did not really know the Gawain story, I just sat back and enjoyed the quest, the imagery, the weirdness (and there is some VERY weird moments - I still don’t know what to make of the scene with the Giants) and was rewarded with a film experience that is rare nowadays, one that just unfurls without telescoping what is happening or what is to come.
This film is not for everyone - it does have a rather languid pace to it - but for those of you that can sit in the stillness, marvel at the imagery and revel in the weirdness/unknown, then THE GREEN KNIGHT is, ultimately, a rewarding film experience - one that (now that I know the story) am eager to revisit.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
1). Brush up on the 14th Century tale (writer unknown) about Sir Gawain (of Knights of the Round Table fame) and The Green Knight
2). Go in “blind” and let the film wash over you.
I did #2 and while I got the “gist” of what was going on, I missed some of the subtleties (or the attempted subtleties) that I now know since I went on-line and brushed up on the story/poem (no, I did not read the 14th century poem - a google search synopsis of plot of the poem was sufficient).
Starring Dev Patel (more on him later) THE GREEN KNIGHT tells the story of a would-be Knight of the Round Table, Gawain, who accepts a challenge of THE GREEN KNIGHT and now must stand up to the consequence of his deeds while heading off on a quest.
Dev Patel (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE) has really grown into a fine actor and he is perfectly cast as the courage-challenged Gawain. He walks through this film with a slight look of fear in his eyes and I was finding myself yelling at him (in my head) to “stand up and do what’s right” (which is the point of the film/story) when he would make the wrong decision.
Alicia Vikander (who I have not seen on screen since 2018’s TOMB RAIDER) and Joel Edgerton (LOVING) are 2 of the people that Gawain meets along the way and they bring strength and star power to the middle part of this film - they came along at an opportune time, for this film was beginning to sag under it’s own weight at that point, but these 2 help propel Gawain (and the film) to the climax.
Director David Lowery (A GHOST STORY) has crafted a fantastical film that reminded me very much of the work of Terry Gilliam - and I mean that as a compliment. He heightens every scene with imagery that’s just “off” (again, I mean that as a compliment) that symbolizes the “quest” that Gawain is on.
He also does something that will either encourage or discourage a viewer (and that is the strength and weakness of this film) - he explains nothing.
For example…at the beginning, Gawain is sitting at a round table with a King and Queen and a bunch of other Knights (or would be Knights). One would assume that this is King Arthur, Guinevere and the Knights of the Round Table, but Lowery never calls them by name. “The King” pulls out his sword and hands it to Gawain for his contest with the Green Knight. The crowd reacts with gasps - one would assume that this is the fable sword Excaliber, but it is never stated.
So…knowing these things (and some of the other aspects of the Gawain) story, might further enrich this experience, but Lowery chooses to not spoon feed the audience and since I did not really know the Gawain story, I just sat back and enjoyed the quest, the imagery, the weirdness (and there is some VERY weird moments - I still don’t know what to make of the scene with the Giants) and was rewarded with a film experience that is rare nowadays, one that just unfurls without telescoping what is happening or what is to come.
This film is not for everyone - it does have a rather languid pace to it - but for those of you that can sit in the stillness, marvel at the imagery and revel in the weirdness/unknown, then THE GREEN KNIGHT is, ultimately, a rewarding film experience - one that (now that I know the story) am eager to revisit.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
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!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated News of the World (2020) in Movies
Jan 17, 2021
Strongly Acted and Directed
Pound for pound, Tom Hanks is the best actor of this generation. From his big screen debut in SPLASH to his Oscar Nominated turn in BIG to his back-to-back Oscar wins for PHILADELPHIA and FORREST GUMP to more recent works like SULLY and THE POST, Hanks’ “everyman goodness” quality shines through the screen and makes him a screen presence that cannot be ignored.
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The New Mutants (2020) in Movies
Aug 29, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
At the time of writing this, The New Mutants has been out in the UK for about 3 days, on preview, and I have already seen a review headed 'The worst X-Men movie yet', I didn't read the review so maybe the reviewer makes some insightful points but, with a lead like that i doubt it.
You see The New Mutants isn't an X-men film, it's set in the (fox? maybe) X-men universe but it's not superheros'/mutants vs other mutants/robots/government, even thought there is a bit of mutants vs baddies.
It is a 'genesis' story, unlike the X-men films, we are seeing the creation of a new team. Like the X-Men films it starts with a new mutant meeting other Mutants.
The 'new mutant' to the New Mutants is Danielle Moonstar, a native American who's reserve and family are destroyed by a tornado leaving her as the only survivor. Danielle wakes up in a hospital to be told of her lose and that the only reason she survived was because she was mutant and she is now in a hospital where she can learn how to use her powers and then she is introduced to the patients/mutants who are at the hospital.
The mutant roster is the New Mutants of the 80's & 90's comics (minus one or two) and the film has a very 80's feel to it.
The New Mutants has a slow start and almost has a 'Breakfast club with powers' feel to it, you have a group of teens who have been placed together and are unable to leave. They sit around and talk about their past and fight and make friends and kiss and fight their worst nightmares and, suddenly your no longer watching 'The Breakfast Club with powers' but 'Nightmare on Elm street 3: the dream warriors, with powers' (Yes I know the kids in Elm Street 3 get powers for a bit but this is different). The Mutants have to team up to fight all sorts of nasties from their pasts, become one cohesive team and find out who is creating the nightmares.
The New Mutants pulls off the 80's teen movie style well but some of the CGI seems a bit off.
Even with the 80's feel we don't actually know when the film is set, the T.V's in the hospital are often showing 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' (the series) so that would imply that it's at least late 90's and the X-Men are mentioned although they are referred to as heroes which doesn't seem to fit elsewhere in the fox universe.
And this, of course is the biggest problem with the film (and it's not the
films fault), New Mutants was started as a Fox film, as part of their X-Men universe but then it got delayed and then fox got brought out by Disney and the film got delayed again (and many thought it would never to see light day.) Then it got released but, the Disney Marvel cinematic Universe doesn't (yet) have mutants (because they were owned by fox ) so it doesn't fit in with any of the Disney films or, as it was finished by Disney it doesn't fit with any X-Men film and so is floating in the strange limbo shared with Legion and the Gifted.
As a stand alone film it is ok however, as Disney had time to re edit it, it makes you wonder why it has been left open, The New Mutants are formed and ready to see what else life can throw at them, is this how mutants are going to be introduce to the Disney-verse or are we just going to be left hanging.
You see The New Mutants isn't an X-men film, it's set in the (fox? maybe) X-men universe but it's not superheros'/mutants vs other mutants/robots/government, even thought there is a bit of mutants vs baddies.
It is a 'genesis' story, unlike the X-men films, we are seeing the creation of a new team. Like the X-Men films it starts with a new mutant meeting other Mutants.
The 'new mutant' to the New Mutants is Danielle Moonstar, a native American who's reserve and family are destroyed by a tornado leaving her as the only survivor. Danielle wakes up in a hospital to be told of her lose and that the only reason she survived was because she was mutant and she is now in a hospital where she can learn how to use her powers and then she is introduced to the patients/mutants who are at the hospital.
The mutant roster is the New Mutants of the 80's & 90's comics (minus one or two) and the film has a very 80's feel to it.
The New Mutants has a slow start and almost has a 'Breakfast club with powers' feel to it, you have a group of teens who have been placed together and are unable to leave. They sit around and talk about their past and fight and make friends and kiss and fight their worst nightmares and, suddenly your no longer watching 'The Breakfast Club with powers' but 'Nightmare on Elm street 3: the dream warriors, with powers' (Yes I know the kids in Elm Street 3 get powers for a bit but this is different). The Mutants have to team up to fight all sorts of nasties from their pasts, become one cohesive team and find out who is creating the nightmares.
The New Mutants pulls off the 80's teen movie style well but some of the CGI seems a bit off.
Even with the 80's feel we don't actually know when the film is set, the T.V's in the hospital are often showing 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' (the series) so that would imply that it's at least late 90's and the X-Men are mentioned although they are referred to as heroes which doesn't seem to fit elsewhere in the fox universe.
And this, of course is the biggest problem with the film (and it's not the
films fault), New Mutants was started as a Fox film, as part of their X-Men universe but then it got delayed and then fox got brought out by Disney and the film got delayed again (and many thought it would never to see light day.) Then it got released but, the Disney Marvel cinematic Universe doesn't (yet) have mutants (because they were owned by fox ) so it doesn't fit in with any of the Disney films or, as it was finished by Disney it doesn't fit with any X-Men film and so is floating in the strange limbo shared with Legion and the Gifted.
As a stand alone film it is ok however, as Disney had time to re edit it, it makes you wonder why it has been left open, The New Mutants are formed and ready to see what else life can throw at them, is this how mutants are going to be introduce to the Disney-verse or are we just going to be left hanging.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Free Guy (2021) in Movies
Aug 12, 2021
Reynolds and particularly Comer are great (1 more)
Lots of laughs, most of them on target
Ready Player Truman
I managed to see “Free Guy” last night at a Cineworld “Secret Cinema” event.
Positives:
- It’s a riot of noise and colour. Like a fevered teenager’s dream. And – in the main – very funny. Ryan Reynolds is, as always, anarchically brilliant, playing the role of both Guy and “The Dude” – the one with the slightly unformed catchphrase. Both Reynolds and actor/director Taika Waititi, who plays the flamboyant mega-games-mogul Antoine – are well known for their improv lines. And this is on show here in spades (for better and in some cases for worse). The Bluray extras on this one are sure to be a smorgasbord of different variants!
- Jodie Comer. Wow! The “Killing Eve” star had a cameo as Rey’s mother in “Star Wars – The Rise of Skywalker” and starred in 2017’s Morrissey biopic “England is Mine”. But she’s been TV’s hidden gem in the main. This will surely be a break-out movie for her since she is in a class of her own here. Her portrayal of the flashback teenage version of herself is brilliantly nuanced and believable. I know she’s a serious actress, but the end of the movie made me think that there’s a strong niche, alongside the likes of Rachel McAdams and Emilia Clarke, in delivering a top-class romcom in the future.
- NO SPOILERS! But there is a surprise cameo towards the end of the movie that made the whole cinema erupt with laughter.
- The score by Christophe Beck is great, and song selections (especially the wonderful “Make Your Own Kind of Music”) are well-chosen and snort-worthy with their inclusion. I was listening to an interview with Beck on the UK's Scala Radio and he used to be a protégé of the great Mike Post: and there’s a nice tribute to Post with the inclusion of his “Greatest American Hero” theme to accompany “Dude” at one point.
Negatives:
- Waititi as Antoine is supposed to be over-the-top, but he misses 11, 12 and 13 and cranks it right up to 14 with his performance. Some of his (presumably) improv lines cross a mark. Dude, CANCER JUST ISN’T FUNNY. Nobody laughed. I can’t understand why this line was left in the cut when presumably they had a number of other variants. Bad judgement. (This is about the only reason I’m not giving this movie 10*s).
- Per “Summary Thoughts” below – it’s not as original as it likes to think it is.
Summary Thoughts on “Free Guy”: So, this is a movie that a lot of folks I know have been waiting for. And it’s a blast that I enjoyed immensely. There is little original under the movie sun, and this is no exception. It strays significantly into Spielberg’s “Ready Player One“, especially towards the end of the movie. But I personally found the closest resonance was with Peter Weir’s peerless “The Truman Show”. I even wondered if Reynolds was acknowledging that at one point, with a Carrey-esque gurn on one of his “Good Morning goldfish” segments?
The great thing is that you can ONLY see this on the big screen (which I hope stays that way for a good number of months). So I recommend you do just that since it’s a fine big screen summer blockbuster to enjoy. But when you go, don’t have a good visit – have a GREAT visit!
And by the way, there is NO 'monkey' (a post-credits scene in One Mann's Movies speak), so you don’t need to “do a Marvel” and sit through the end credits (unless, like me, you want to listen to more of Christophe Beck’s score again).
For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- It’s a riot of noise and colour. Like a fevered teenager’s dream. And – in the main – very funny. Ryan Reynolds is, as always, anarchically brilliant, playing the role of both Guy and “The Dude” – the one with the slightly unformed catchphrase. Both Reynolds and actor/director Taika Waititi, who plays the flamboyant mega-games-mogul Antoine – are well known for their improv lines. And this is on show here in spades (for better and in some cases for worse). The Bluray extras on this one are sure to be a smorgasbord of different variants!
- Jodie Comer. Wow! The “Killing Eve” star had a cameo as Rey’s mother in “Star Wars – The Rise of Skywalker” and starred in 2017’s Morrissey biopic “England is Mine”. But she’s been TV’s hidden gem in the main. This will surely be a break-out movie for her since she is in a class of her own here. Her portrayal of the flashback teenage version of herself is brilliantly nuanced and believable. I know she’s a serious actress, but the end of the movie made me think that there’s a strong niche, alongside the likes of Rachel McAdams and Emilia Clarke, in delivering a top-class romcom in the future.
- NO SPOILERS! But there is a surprise cameo towards the end of the movie that made the whole cinema erupt with laughter.
- The score by Christophe Beck is great, and song selections (especially the wonderful “Make Your Own Kind of Music”) are well-chosen and snort-worthy with their inclusion. I was listening to an interview with Beck on the UK's Scala Radio and he used to be a protégé of the great Mike Post: and there’s a nice tribute to Post with the inclusion of his “Greatest American Hero” theme to accompany “Dude” at one point.
Negatives:
- Waititi as Antoine is supposed to be over-the-top, but he misses 11, 12 and 13 and cranks it right up to 14 with his performance. Some of his (presumably) improv lines cross a mark. Dude, CANCER JUST ISN’T FUNNY. Nobody laughed. I can’t understand why this line was left in the cut when presumably they had a number of other variants. Bad judgement. (This is about the only reason I’m not giving this movie 10*s).
- Per “Summary Thoughts” below – it’s not as original as it likes to think it is.
Summary Thoughts on “Free Guy”: So, this is a movie that a lot of folks I know have been waiting for. And it’s a blast that I enjoyed immensely. There is little original under the movie sun, and this is no exception. It strays significantly into Spielberg’s “Ready Player One“, especially towards the end of the movie. But I personally found the closest resonance was with Peter Weir’s peerless “The Truman Show”. I even wondered if Reynolds was acknowledging that at one point, with a Carrey-esque gurn on one of his “Good Morning goldfish” segments?
The great thing is that you can ONLY see this on the big screen (which I hope stays that way for a good number of months). So I recommend you do just that since it’s a fine big screen summer blockbuster to enjoy. But when you go, don’t have a good visit – have a GREAT visit!
And by the way, there is NO 'monkey' (a post-credits scene in One Mann's Movies speak), so you don’t need to “do a Marvel” and sit through the end credits (unless, like me, you want to listen to more of Christophe Beck’s score again).
For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Insanely violent… insanely funny.
It’s a pretty good bet that the cinema-going public will be pretty evenly divided between those that think films like “Deadpool“, “Kingsman: The Secret Service” and “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” are enormous fun and those that think they are crass, puerile and appealing to all the basest instincts of human beings. I happen to fall into the first category, and “Deadpool 2” lives up to – and in some cases surpasses – the quality of the first film.
It’s a “family film” (LoL). Ryan Reynolds is back again as the eponymous superhero (aka Wade Wilson) and we start the film with him in a state of romantic bliss with Vanessa (Morena Baccarin). But things quickly go south, and what follows is a convoluted plot involving a local gangster, an Arnie-type character from the future (Josh Brolin) and an potentially dark X-powered child Firefist (Julian Dennison, “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”). Deadpool has to use all his powers to restore order to the planet. Given that his “power” is the ability to rejuvenate himself after surviving the most catastrophic injuries, you can predict that things will get messy!
Yes guys, it’s violent… very, very violent! But it’s done in such a “Tom and Jerry” style that it always comes out as a “Bluuugggghhhhaaaaa!” (* that’s supposed to be the noise of a huge guffaw) rather than an “Ugggh” (retch).
A particular high point for me was the assembly of the ‘X-Men-Lite’ team called “X-force”. The ‘interviews’ for this are hilarious, but the first sortie of the team to intercept a convoy moving prisoners** is even better. It’s just snort-your-Ben-and-Jerry’s-out-of-the-nose funny. This scene also includes precisely 1.8 seconds of a splendid cameo in the part of “Vanisher”!
There are many scenes, supported by numerous snide one-liners, that reference movie classics. A subliminal cameo(s) shot in the X-Men house is just brilliant. Equally brilliant but much more disturbing is a variant on that most famous scene from “Basic Instinct”…. this falls into the “can’t unsee” category of movie clips!
But the film rather over-eggs the comic asides, with a scattergun approach to the comedy that works 70% of the time but not for the other 30%. The best ones are Deadpool’s snide aside to camera. Where the script over-reaches is where the joke gets spread across the cast: one ensemble scene in particular in the flat of blind Al (Leslie Uggams) is: a) delivered so fast as to be practically unintelligible and b) falls as flat as a pancake as a result.
Josh Brolin must have signed a three-film baddie deal, since here he pops up again just weeks after his brilliant Thanos-turn in “Avengers: Infinity War“. And as for that performance, here he is superbly nuanced, with scenes that are truly touching (and with less CGI) .
Across the superhero ensemble, Zazie Beetz stands out as “Domino”. She really should be called “Lucky” though (and yes Andrea ‘Van Helsing’ Ware… I know you have the trademark on that character name! 🙂 ). Domino is my favourite character in the film… just so cool and stylish.
And credit where credit’s due, Ryan Reynolds (“Life“, “The Hitman’s Bodyguard“) is again outstanding as Deadpool. Given he is such a dish (not speaking personally here you understand) he is very brave to portray his character in such an self-deprecating and downbeat way. The final scene in the film (following some brilliant “tidying up the timeline” scenes) is so gloriously self-mocking that I LoLed myself all the way home. Outstanding.
As Marvel films go, it’s another corking comedy. But so close to the knuckle in places, I suspect this is not a character that will feature in the Infinity War sequel!
It’s a “family film” (LoL). Ryan Reynolds is back again as the eponymous superhero (aka Wade Wilson) and we start the film with him in a state of romantic bliss with Vanessa (Morena Baccarin). But things quickly go south, and what follows is a convoluted plot involving a local gangster, an Arnie-type character from the future (Josh Brolin) and an potentially dark X-powered child Firefist (Julian Dennison, “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”). Deadpool has to use all his powers to restore order to the planet. Given that his “power” is the ability to rejuvenate himself after surviving the most catastrophic injuries, you can predict that things will get messy!
Yes guys, it’s violent… very, very violent! But it’s done in such a “Tom and Jerry” style that it always comes out as a “Bluuugggghhhhaaaaa!” (* that’s supposed to be the noise of a huge guffaw) rather than an “Ugggh” (retch).
A particular high point for me was the assembly of the ‘X-Men-Lite’ team called “X-force”. The ‘interviews’ for this are hilarious, but the first sortie of the team to intercept a convoy moving prisoners** is even better. It’s just snort-your-Ben-and-Jerry’s-out-of-the-nose funny. This scene also includes precisely 1.8 seconds of a splendid cameo in the part of “Vanisher”!
There are many scenes, supported by numerous snide one-liners, that reference movie classics. A subliminal cameo(s) shot in the X-Men house is just brilliant. Equally brilliant but much more disturbing is a variant on that most famous scene from “Basic Instinct”…. this falls into the “can’t unsee” category of movie clips!
But the film rather over-eggs the comic asides, with a scattergun approach to the comedy that works 70% of the time but not for the other 30%. The best ones are Deadpool’s snide aside to camera. Where the script over-reaches is where the joke gets spread across the cast: one ensemble scene in particular in the flat of blind Al (Leslie Uggams) is: a) delivered so fast as to be practically unintelligible and b) falls as flat as a pancake as a result.
Josh Brolin must have signed a three-film baddie deal, since here he pops up again just weeks after his brilliant Thanos-turn in “Avengers: Infinity War“. And as for that performance, here he is superbly nuanced, with scenes that are truly touching (and with less CGI) .
Across the superhero ensemble, Zazie Beetz stands out as “Domino”. She really should be called “Lucky” though (and yes Andrea ‘Van Helsing’ Ware… I know you have the trademark on that character name! 🙂 ). Domino is my favourite character in the film… just so cool and stylish.
And credit where credit’s due, Ryan Reynolds (“Life“, “The Hitman’s Bodyguard“) is again outstanding as Deadpool. Given he is such a dish (not speaking personally here you understand) he is very brave to portray his character in such an self-deprecating and downbeat way. The final scene in the film (following some brilliant “tidying up the timeline” scenes) is so gloriously self-mocking that I LoLed myself all the way home. Outstanding.
As Marvel films go, it’s another corking comedy. But so close to the knuckle in places, I suspect this is not a character that will feature in the Infinity War sequel!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The length of time it’s taken me to catch this one at the cinema belies my lukewarm interest in the material: I’m not a ‘fan boy’ for either Marvel or DC properties. As it turns out, writer/director David “Fury” Ayer’s Suicide Squad is just plain frustrating in cinematic terms.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) in Movies
Apr 30, 2022
The Magic is Fading
Alas, the magic is fading in the Wizarding World
The 3rd installment of the Fantastic Beasts saga, THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is satisfying enough for fans of the ongoing Wizarding World of Harry Potter universe and will be time well spent for those of you that have watched all 8 Harry Potter films and the first 2 FANTASTIC BEASTS films, but it is nothing…magical.
Picking up where the 2nd film (THE CRIMES OF GRINDEWALD) left off, the arch-nemesis of Dumbledore (a game Jude Law) is in power and looking to start a war with the Muggles (non-magic folk). A ragtag group of heroes (are there any other kind) led by Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) are humanity’s only hope.
And…while this worked well in the first series of film…this setup falls rather flat as it has a “been there done that” feel to it that is not really elevated above the ordinary.
The reason are numerous:
First, Newt Scamander is no Harry Potter. While Eddie Redymayne plays an interesting, quirky, central character - a character who’s unique skills were needed to defeat the bad guy in the first film - he is, really, a secondary character, yet he is the one we follow throughout the film. Kind of like watching the Harry Potter films through the eyes of Neville Longbottom.
Secondly, Grindewald (this time played by Mads Mikkelsen, replacing Johnny Depp) is no Voldemort. Grindewald was an interesting character set up in the first film, but by this film, he is pretty bland (and pretty blandly played by Mikkeslen who is, frankly, miscast).
Thirdly, Dumbledore (Jude Law in a very good performance, one that needed to be larger and more central) is sidelined for most of this film - a film about the battle between Grindewald and Dumbledore, a stumble (plotwise) to be sure in an awkward attempt to keeping the Newt Scamander character front and center.
Fortunately, the supporting cast is strong from Dan Fogler’s muggle, Jacob Kowalski to his love, Queenie (Alison Sudol) to Newt’s brother, Theseus (Callum Turner) to Newt’s assistant Bunty (Victoria Yeates) to Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth (Richard Coyle) - all have their moments and are interesting (enough) to watch.
Unfortunately, Ezra Miller’s conflicted villain, Credence is poorly written with a crescendo to his character that lands with a thud. And, the inexplicable reason that Katherine Waterston’s main character of Tina is sidelined (rumors are she conflicted with J.K. Rowling) just doesn’t land, so, consequently, 2 major pieces from the first 2 films just don’t work.
What does work in this film is the magical sequences, as handled by Harry Potter veteran David Yates (who has now helmed 6 films in the Wizarding World franchise), the magical scenes are truly…magical. They are fun to watch and the real reason to watch this film, but the story is weak with a misguided viewpoint character that diminishes the fantasy for all.
Rumors are that this was supposed to be a 5 film franchise, but with box office diminishing for each successive Fantastic Beasts films, the filmmakers wisely decided to wrap up most storylines in this film.
It’s time to say goodbye to FANTASTIC BEASTS, but it should be time for the Wizarding World to go the way of Star Wars, Marvel and Star Trek - streaming TV series that breathes new life - and new, interesting characters - to a sagging franchise.
In the meantime, FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is “good enough” and since it is all we have at the moment, it will have to do.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The 3rd installment of the Fantastic Beasts saga, THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is satisfying enough for fans of the ongoing Wizarding World of Harry Potter universe and will be time well spent for those of you that have watched all 8 Harry Potter films and the first 2 FANTASTIC BEASTS films, but it is nothing…magical.
Picking up where the 2nd film (THE CRIMES OF GRINDEWALD) left off, the arch-nemesis of Dumbledore (a game Jude Law) is in power and looking to start a war with the Muggles (non-magic folk). A ragtag group of heroes (are there any other kind) led by Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) are humanity’s only hope.
And…while this worked well in the first series of film…this setup falls rather flat as it has a “been there done that” feel to it that is not really elevated above the ordinary.
The reason are numerous:
First, Newt Scamander is no Harry Potter. While Eddie Redymayne plays an interesting, quirky, central character - a character who’s unique skills were needed to defeat the bad guy in the first film - he is, really, a secondary character, yet he is the one we follow throughout the film. Kind of like watching the Harry Potter films through the eyes of Neville Longbottom.
Secondly, Grindewald (this time played by Mads Mikkelsen, replacing Johnny Depp) is no Voldemort. Grindewald was an interesting character set up in the first film, but by this film, he is pretty bland (and pretty blandly played by Mikkeslen who is, frankly, miscast).
Thirdly, Dumbledore (Jude Law in a very good performance, one that needed to be larger and more central) is sidelined for most of this film - a film about the battle between Grindewald and Dumbledore, a stumble (plotwise) to be sure in an awkward attempt to keeping the Newt Scamander character front and center.
Fortunately, the supporting cast is strong from Dan Fogler’s muggle, Jacob Kowalski to his love, Queenie (Alison Sudol) to Newt’s brother, Theseus (Callum Turner) to Newt’s assistant Bunty (Victoria Yeates) to Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth (Richard Coyle) - all have their moments and are interesting (enough) to watch.
Unfortunately, Ezra Miller’s conflicted villain, Credence is poorly written with a crescendo to his character that lands with a thud. And, the inexplicable reason that Katherine Waterston’s main character of Tina is sidelined (rumors are she conflicted with J.K. Rowling) just doesn’t land, so, consequently, 2 major pieces from the first 2 films just don’t work.
What does work in this film is the magical sequences, as handled by Harry Potter veteran David Yates (who has now helmed 6 films in the Wizarding World franchise), the magical scenes are truly…magical. They are fun to watch and the real reason to watch this film, but the story is weak with a misguided viewpoint character that diminishes the fantasy for all.
Rumors are that this was supposed to be a 5 film franchise, but with box office diminishing for each successive Fantastic Beasts films, the filmmakers wisely decided to wrap up most storylines in this film.
It’s time to say goodbye to FANTASTIC BEASTS, but it should be time for the Wizarding World to go the way of Star Wars, Marvel and Star Trek - streaming TV series that breathes new life - and new, interesting characters - to a sagging franchise.
In the meantime, FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is “good enough” and since it is all we have at the moment, it will have to do.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)