Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An ambitious but flawed finale
M. Night Shyamalan is back behind the camera! Quick, run! Joking aside, Shyamalan’s career is as convoluted as his signature third-act twists. Starting off with the fabulous The Sixth Sense and then almost derailing his career with catastrophic failures like The Happening, After Earth and dare I mention it, The Last Airbender, it appeared we had all but lost that once promising directorial flair.
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
DJ Muggs recommended Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) by Wu-Tang Clan in Music (curated)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Apr 9, 2019 (Updated Apr 9, 2019)
Good Fun
Being the big ol' geek that I am, I usually know the source material of the superhero movie I am going to see pretty well. Shazam is an exception to this, - other than the infamous Captain Marvel/Shazam copyright battle between Marvel and DC's lawyers over the years and the fact that he is a teenage boy who transforms into a grown man who looks like Superman with a similar power set, - I don't know much about the character. Watching Shazam, I was more so reminded of a Mark Millar comic called Superior, which bears multiple plot similarities to Shazam, to the point that I am surprised that DC have never attempted to sue Millar for blatant plagiarism.
In a word, Shazam is fun. I enjoyed my time with it and I would see it again. I enjoyed seeing Mark Strong hamming it up as the movie's villain and Zachary Levi did a great job in the titular role. Also, his chemistry with Jack Dylan Grazer's character was a huge highlight of the film for me. The SFX were on point for the most part other than the fairly cartoony representations of the 7 deadly sins monsters. There was also a charming, dumb, pure, innocence to the movie that really shone through the entire thing.
My biggest issue with the movie was Asher Angel as Billy Batson when he's not Shazam. Not necessarily because he is a bad actor or anything, but more because of how he chose to play the role. He came across as broody and introspective, almost the total opposite of how Zachary Levi came across as Shazam with his over the top playfulness and silly puns. This discrepancy was prevalent to the point where the illusion that these two actors were playing the same character was entirely broken and it was as if they were just playing two totally different characters with entirely opposite personalities that were just never in the same room. I feel like a bit of smoothing out could have been done between the actors to come to a compromise where they could both deliver their respective lines while believably playing the same character.
Also, something that you should probably know going in is that this is a comedy with lessons about family and responsibility before it is a Superhero/Action movie. It does make sense within the context of the film that there are no epic action scenes as Billy is just an untrained everyday kid that has been given a bunch of amazing powers that he is still getting to grips with, but don't expect any mind-blowing action scenes on par with MCU movies etc. Even though I guess it makes sense that there wasn't anything too impressive in terms of action scenes, I was left a little bit unfulfilled as I left the theatre that the film felt more insistent on showing us tender family moments rather than huge scale superhero battles.
Overall, Shazam is dumb fun. Don't think too hard about it and you will almost certainly have a great time watching it. I am glad that the fun factor of DC films seems to be on the up and they have dropped the dour tone of their Batman/Superman stories set up by Zack Snyder and they seem to have almost totally abandoned the idea of following in Marvel's footsteps of tying movies together in order to lead up to a team up blockbuster. This move seems to be for the best and is what they should have been doing from the start rather than trying to win a losing battle and play catch up with a franchise that has been building for an entire decade at this point.
In a word, Shazam is fun. I enjoyed my time with it and I would see it again. I enjoyed seeing Mark Strong hamming it up as the movie's villain and Zachary Levi did a great job in the titular role. Also, his chemistry with Jack Dylan Grazer's character was a huge highlight of the film for me. The SFX were on point for the most part other than the fairly cartoony representations of the 7 deadly sins monsters. There was also a charming, dumb, pure, innocence to the movie that really shone through the entire thing.
My biggest issue with the movie was Asher Angel as Billy Batson when he's not Shazam. Not necessarily because he is a bad actor or anything, but more because of how he chose to play the role. He came across as broody and introspective, almost the total opposite of how Zachary Levi came across as Shazam with his over the top playfulness and silly puns. This discrepancy was prevalent to the point where the illusion that these two actors were playing the same character was entirely broken and it was as if they were just playing two totally different characters with entirely opposite personalities that were just never in the same room. I feel like a bit of smoothing out could have been done between the actors to come to a compromise where they could both deliver their respective lines while believably playing the same character.
Also, something that you should probably know going in is that this is a comedy with lessons about family and responsibility before it is a Superhero/Action movie. It does make sense within the context of the film that there are no epic action scenes as Billy is just an untrained everyday kid that has been given a bunch of amazing powers that he is still getting to grips with, but don't expect any mind-blowing action scenes on par with MCU movies etc. Even though I guess it makes sense that there wasn't anything too impressive in terms of action scenes, I was left a little bit unfulfilled as I left the theatre that the film felt more insistent on showing us tender family moments rather than huge scale superhero battles.
Overall, Shazam is dumb fun. Don't think too hard about it and you will almost certainly have a great time watching it. I am glad that the fun factor of DC films seems to be on the up and they have dropped the dour tone of their Batman/Superman stories set up by Zack Snyder and they seem to have almost totally abandoned the idea of following in Marvel's footsteps of tying movies together in order to lead up to a team up blockbuster. This move seems to be for the best and is what they should have been doing from the start rather than trying to win a losing battle and play catch up with a franchise that has been building for an entire decade at this point.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Top Five (2014) in Movies
Mar 23, 2018
Great Comedy
Journalist Chelsea Brown (Rosario Dawson) is shadowing actor/comedian Andre Allen (Chris Rock) for a day as he promotes his new film. Still recovering from being an alcoholic, Allen is trying to juggle all the different moving parts of his life while planning for a wedding at the same time.
Acting: 10
Stellar performances all around from an amazing cast. While Rock was excellent, I have to show the most love to Dawson who checks all the boxes in her role. She's witty, funny, challenging, vulnerable. Just an all-around success.
And every single time I think about Cedric the Entertainer's role as Jazzy Dee, I can't help but crack a smile. Cedric typically excels in character roles and Top Five is no exception as he hosts Rock's character in Houston. I can't remember one scene he was in where I wasn't openly laughing.
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to an excellent start setting the tone for things to come. Andre and Chelsea are walking the streets of New York having multiple debates at once. Seeing their clashing point of views is perfect.
Characters: 10
You want an array of different personalities, you absolutely have it with Top Five. Chelsea's character is phenomenal with her brutal honesty and reluctant vulnerability. She is just what Andre needs in his life. Meanwhile, Jazzy Dee is the definition of hood swag. He wants everyone to know that he's the man in Houston and you almost start to believe him. Among others, I also enjoyed the role of Benny played by Romany Malco. He plays a publicist trying to keep everything together as things fall apart all around him.
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Solid shots that will always stick out in my head are any involving Hammy the Bear and the scenes where Andre is surrounded by the people he loves. There are definitely others I can't mention for the sake of spoiling the film, but I will remember them for a very long time.
Conflict: 10
As the story progressed, there was always something going on to pay attention to. Andre's struggles and all the things he was having to deal with kept me motivated to watch to see how things were going to play out. Definitely more moving parts than I would have expected.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
When I think of how memorable this film will be for me, both scenes where Andre and his family are debating their top five rappers of all time will always stand out for me. Whether it was rappers, NBA players, video games, these were common amongst my family and friends. Watching his family go at it, agreeing and disagreeing with each other, was a taste of home for me.
The cameos are bananas, making you wonder who's going show up next. Again, there are a couple of scenes that make the film extremely memorable, but even me describing them here wouldn't do them justice. Trust me when I say it's something you have to see, believe, then laugh uncontrollably at.
Pace: 10
Solid progression from one scene to the next. There was never a point where I was checking Google or thinking of what movie I was going to watch next. This film kept me engrossed.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 8
The ending was darn-near perfect. Sure, they could have given you just a taste more (hence the 8), but I thought it wrapped at a nice stopping point if you ask me. It did what it needed to do and it was gone.
Overall: 91
I was pleasantly surprised with how much I liked this film for a number of reasons. It's a sleeper that I highly recommend.
Acting: 10
Stellar performances all around from an amazing cast. While Rock was excellent, I have to show the most love to Dawson who checks all the boxes in her role. She's witty, funny, challenging, vulnerable. Just an all-around success.
And every single time I think about Cedric the Entertainer's role as Jazzy Dee, I can't help but crack a smile. Cedric typically excels in character roles and Top Five is no exception as he hosts Rock's character in Houston. I can't remember one scene he was in where I wasn't openly laughing.
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to an excellent start setting the tone for things to come. Andre and Chelsea are walking the streets of New York having multiple debates at once. Seeing their clashing point of views is perfect.
Characters: 10
You want an array of different personalities, you absolutely have it with Top Five. Chelsea's character is phenomenal with her brutal honesty and reluctant vulnerability. She is just what Andre needs in his life. Meanwhile, Jazzy Dee is the definition of hood swag. He wants everyone to know that he's the man in Houston and you almost start to believe him. Among others, I also enjoyed the role of Benny played by Romany Malco. He plays a publicist trying to keep everything together as things fall apart all around him.
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Solid shots that will always stick out in my head are any involving Hammy the Bear and the scenes where Andre is surrounded by the people he loves. There are definitely others I can't mention for the sake of spoiling the film, but I will remember them for a very long time.
Conflict: 10
As the story progressed, there was always something going on to pay attention to. Andre's struggles and all the things he was having to deal with kept me motivated to watch to see how things were going to play out. Definitely more moving parts than I would have expected.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
When I think of how memorable this film will be for me, both scenes where Andre and his family are debating their top five rappers of all time will always stand out for me. Whether it was rappers, NBA players, video games, these were common amongst my family and friends. Watching his family go at it, agreeing and disagreeing with each other, was a taste of home for me.
The cameos are bananas, making you wonder who's going show up next. Again, there are a couple of scenes that make the film extremely memorable, but even me describing them here wouldn't do them justice. Trust me when I say it's something you have to see, believe, then laugh uncontrollably at.
Pace: 10
Solid progression from one scene to the next. There was never a point where I was checking Google or thinking of what movie I was going to watch next. This film kept me engrossed.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 8
The ending was darn-near perfect. Sure, they could have given you just a taste more (hence the 8), but I thought it wrapped at a nice stopping point if you ask me. It did what it needed to do and it was gone.
Overall: 91
I was pleasantly surprised with how much I liked this film for a number of reasons. It's a sleeper that I highly recommend.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Thursday Murder Club in Books
Oct 5, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a
<a href="https://ko-fi.com/diaryofdifference">Ko-fi</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-82.png"/>;
I am so happy I am able to be part of the instagram tour for The Thursday Murder Club by Richard Osman. Thank you to the amazing team at Penguin Random House and Viking, for sending me an ARC copy of this book.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
We follow Elizabeth, Joyce, Ron and Ibrahim, who all meet up on Thursdays and solve mysteries. But when a murder happens in their environment, they cannot stay idle. Having their own tricks up their sleeves, they uncover evidence and keep getting closer to solving the mystery. But one mystery leads to another, and another, and before they know it, they are tangled in a mystery where everyone is a suspect and no one can be trusted.
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
Their personalities, especially the ability to be brutally honest and not care what they say or do is what kept me giggling throughout. Their resilience and perseverance, and the ability to trick people as well as be a nuisance was so refreshing to read, because it was so real, and I have seen it before.
I used to work in a care home with people that were suffering from dementia, and I am glad that there is a book like this one, that realistically describes how the elderly spend their free time and how mischievous they can be.
Sometimes they help the police, and sometimes they hide things and manipulate so much that I just couldn’t believe the audacity (which was funny on its own). But I think what I loved the most was how much fun they have while they are doing what they want to do - solve mysteries. And they are very good at it!
<b><i>“In life, you have to count the good days. You have to tuck them in your pocket and carry them around with you.”</i></b>
As a foreigner, I thought I wouldn’t understand the British humor.
But I suppose living with a British partner and working in the UK does help a lot. Damn, I’ve been here too long :D Although, there was one part that I did not get, and my partner had to assist me with.
I didn’t understand the meaning of “What forty-six kilos was in real money". And when explained, let me tell you, I was not impressed. :D
<b><i>“People without a sense of humour will never forgive you for being funny.”</i></b>
On the subject of mystery, because in the end, this is a mystery novel, it does deliver. There are multiple mysteries, shall I say multi-layered, and some of the mysteries did keep me wondering until the end. Some of them, I did guess quite early in the book. I kept thinking that all the mysteries would somehow end up connected, and they do, but not in the way I expect - that’s all I will say, without revealing too much.
<b><i>I loved the The Thursday Murder Club.</i></b>
It made me giggle, it made me wonder and try to solve the multi-layer mystery, it made me sad and surprised. It got all the emotions out of me, and I loved it! I would definitely recommend this book!
<b><i>“Tony is not a believer in luck, he’s a believer in hard work. If you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail.”</i></b>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a
<a href="https://ko-fi.com/diaryofdifference">Ko-fi</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Book-Review-Banner-82.png"/>;
I am so happy I am able to be part of the instagram tour for The Thursday Murder Club by Richard Osman. Thank you to the amazing team at Penguin Random House and Viking, for sending me an ARC copy of this book.
<b><i>Synopsis:</i></b>
We follow Elizabeth, Joyce, Ron and Ibrahim, who all meet up on Thursdays and solve mysteries. But when a murder happens in their environment, they cannot stay idle. Having their own tricks up their sleeves, they uncover evidence and keep getting closer to solving the mystery. But one mystery leads to another, and another, and before they know it, they are tangled in a mystery where everyone is a suspect and no one can be trusted.
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
Their personalities, especially the ability to be brutally honest and not care what they say or do is what kept me giggling throughout. Their resilience and perseverance, and the ability to trick people as well as be a nuisance was so refreshing to read, because it was so real, and I have seen it before.
I used to work in a care home with people that were suffering from dementia, and I am glad that there is a book like this one, that realistically describes how the elderly spend their free time and how mischievous they can be.
Sometimes they help the police, and sometimes they hide things and manipulate so much that I just couldn’t believe the audacity (which was funny on its own). But I think what I loved the most was how much fun they have while they are doing what they want to do - solve mysteries. And they are very good at it!
<b><i>“In life, you have to count the good days. You have to tuck them in your pocket and carry them around with you.”</i></b>
As a foreigner, I thought I wouldn’t understand the British humor.
But I suppose living with a British partner and working in the UK does help a lot. Damn, I’ve been here too long :D Although, there was one part that I did not get, and my partner had to assist me with.
I didn’t understand the meaning of “What forty-six kilos was in real money". And when explained, let me tell you, I was not impressed. :D
<b><i>“People without a sense of humour will never forgive you for being funny.”</i></b>
On the subject of mystery, because in the end, this is a mystery novel, it does deliver. There are multiple mysteries, shall I say multi-layered, and some of the mysteries did keep me wondering until the end. Some of them, I did guess quite early in the book. I kept thinking that all the mysteries would somehow end up connected, and they do, but not in the way I expect - that’s all I will say, without revealing too much.
<b><i>I loved the The Thursday Murder Club.</i></b>
It made me giggle, it made me wonder and try to solve the multi-layer mystery, it made me sad and surprised. It got all the emotions out of me, and I loved it! I would definitely recommend this book!
<b><i>“Tony is not a believer in luck, he’s a believer in hard work. If you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail.”</i></b>
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!