Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel in TV
Feb 22, 2021
Scarily glamourises internet sleuthing
Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel is the latest stylised true crime documentary from Netflix, and it’s a pretty scary watch, but not in the way you’d expect from something that has been advertised as a supernatural murder mystery.
The 4 episode documentary series focuses on a notorious hotel in downtown L.A, Hotel Cecil, and the disappearance of a Canadian student, Elisa Lam, who went missing from the hotel in unexplained circumstances and who was later found dead. On paper this has everything a true crime lover wants: CCTV footage of the victim acting strangely, a creepy hotel with a dodgy history and a lot of strange and unusual circumstances, which culminates in Elisa Lam’s decomposing body being found in a water tank on the hotel roof days after her disappearance, the same water that the hotel guests have been drinking all along. It’s a truly fascinating story and if done properly, would have been very interesting. However in the hands of director Joe Berlinger, the disappearance of Elisa Lam has been turned into a dull, drawn out affair that dangerously glamourises baseless conspiracy theories.
One of the two main problems is that this documentary has been drawn out over 4 hour long episodes, when realistically the true story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance could still have been told effectively in an hour, maybe two maximum, without detracting from the facts. And I guess that’s really the problem with The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, it isn’t necessarily all that concerned about the facts but rather just wants to create a film-like entertaining story, with the facts almost an afterthought crammed into the final parts of the last episode. It features lengthy and pointless interviews from other guests and tourists to try and give us a feel of what life at the Cecil was like, and these are entirely unnecessary, as some short exposition from the hotel manager or officers involved would’ve sufficed. Every part of this case is stretched so thinly that you almost lose track after having to weed out the truth and facts amongst all the irrelevant interviews and chatter. It isn’t helped by the narration of some of Elisa’s Tumblr posts, which comes across as cheesy and irritating rather than emotional and meaningful like it was probably intended.
What is most irrelevant and dangerous about this documentary, and the second main problem, is the focus on internet sleuths. These are mostly YouTubers who have spent hours dissecting every aspect of the case and have put forward many outrageous theories, all of which are completely laughable. But instead of mocking these idiots, this documentary glamourises them and their theories, and has dedicated more of it’s runtime to them than it has to any of the real life detectives and investigators involved. Watching these people wheel out one ridiculous theory after another had me wanting to throw my remote at the screen to make it stop. The theories ranged from the questionably plausible (foul player or murder) to the downright ludicrous - someone copying the film Dark Water, possible links to the Lam-Elisa TB test and a vast cover up jointly orchestrated by the police, hotel management and coroners staff are the ones that made me laugh and cringe the most.
All jokes aside, this focus on internet sleuths is extremely damaging and dangerous and this is illustrated by the awful accusations they made about Pablo Vergara aka Morbid, who’s only crime was to make music that wouldn’t be considered mainstream. If this documentary had focused on slamming these people and highlighting the dangers of them getting involved, then it would’ve redeemed itself. But it doesn’t, it gives them centre stage and debunking their theories is almost an afterthought. They aren’t even condemned for their treatment of Pablo despite the obviously long lasting effects on his mental health. These people are crazy and this only serves to highlight the huge problem with internet, video streaming sites and social media – how Joe public can ever think they know better than qualified pathologists and investigators is beyond me. And how this documentary can indulge and glamourise these people is even worse. From working a day job in the emergency services, I know how damaging this sort of interference and public perception can be.
The story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance at the Hotel Cecil is undoubtedly an interesting one. However in Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, the real story has been mauled and disrespected by the focus and respect given to the internet sleuths and their absurd theories. I feel like I’m being generous giving it a 3, it made me so angry.
The 4 episode documentary series focuses on a notorious hotel in downtown L.A, Hotel Cecil, and the disappearance of a Canadian student, Elisa Lam, who went missing from the hotel in unexplained circumstances and who was later found dead. On paper this has everything a true crime lover wants: CCTV footage of the victim acting strangely, a creepy hotel with a dodgy history and a lot of strange and unusual circumstances, which culminates in Elisa Lam’s decomposing body being found in a water tank on the hotel roof days after her disappearance, the same water that the hotel guests have been drinking all along. It’s a truly fascinating story and if done properly, would have been very interesting. However in the hands of director Joe Berlinger, the disappearance of Elisa Lam has been turned into a dull, drawn out affair that dangerously glamourises baseless conspiracy theories.
One of the two main problems is that this documentary has been drawn out over 4 hour long episodes, when realistically the true story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance could still have been told effectively in an hour, maybe two maximum, without detracting from the facts. And I guess that’s really the problem with The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, it isn’t necessarily all that concerned about the facts but rather just wants to create a film-like entertaining story, with the facts almost an afterthought crammed into the final parts of the last episode. It features lengthy and pointless interviews from other guests and tourists to try and give us a feel of what life at the Cecil was like, and these are entirely unnecessary, as some short exposition from the hotel manager or officers involved would’ve sufficed. Every part of this case is stretched so thinly that you almost lose track after having to weed out the truth and facts amongst all the irrelevant interviews and chatter. It isn’t helped by the narration of some of Elisa’s Tumblr posts, which comes across as cheesy and irritating rather than emotional and meaningful like it was probably intended.
What is most irrelevant and dangerous about this documentary, and the second main problem, is the focus on internet sleuths. These are mostly YouTubers who have spent hours dissecting every aspect of the case and have put forward many outrageous theories, all of which are completely laughable. But instead of mocking these idiots, this documentary glamourises them and their theories, and has dedicated more of it’s runtime to them than it has to any of the real life detectives and investigators involved. Watching these people wheel out one ridiculous theory after another had me wanting to throw my remote at the screen to make it stop. The theories ranged from the questionably plausible (foul player or murder) to the downright ludicrous - someone copying the film Dark Water, possible links to the Lam-Elisa TB test and a vast cover up jointly orchestrated by the police, hotel management and coroners staff are the ones that made me laugh and cringe the most.
All jokes aside, this focus on internet sleuths is extremely damaging and dangerous and this is illustrated by the awful accusations they made about Pablo Vergara aka Morbid, who’s only crime was to make music that wouldn’t be considered mainstream. If this documentary had focused on slamming these people and highlighting the dangers of them getting involved, then it would’ve redeemed itself. But it doesn’t, it gives them centre stage and debunking their theories is almost an afterthought. They aren’t even condemned for their treatment of Pablo despite the obviously long lasting effects on his mental health. These people are crazy and this only serves to highlight the huge problem with internet, video streaming sites and social media – how Joe public can ever think they know better than qualified pathologists and investigators is beyond me. And how this documentary can indulge and glamourise these people is even worse. From working a day job in the emergency services, I know how damaging this sort of interference and public perception can be.
The story of Elisa Lam’s disappearance at the Hotel Cecil is undoubtedly an interesting one. However in Crime Scene: The Vanishing at the Cecil Hotel, the real story has been mauled and disrespected by the focus and respect given to the internet sleuths and their absurd theories. I feel like I’m being generous giving it a 3, it made me so angry.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Goodbye Normal Jean
It would be easy to write off X-Men: Dark Phoenix as a complete and utter disaster. With the departure of Bryan Singer (again) from the franchise, first-time director Simon Kinberg taking his place and rumours of costly reshoots pushing the budget north of $200million, things weren’t looking good for this adaptation of the popular Marvel comic.
Let’s not forget that the last time Fox tried to adapt this storyline we ended up with 2006’s The Last Stand, and the less said about that the better. Looking back over the last 20 years, the X-Men’s film franchise history has been chequered to say the least.
Nevertheless, this particular timeline that started with Matthew Vaughn’s adequate First Class, followed up by the excellent Days of Future Past and the flabby Apocalypse ends with Dark Phoenix. But is it worthy of your consideration?
This is the story of one of the X-Men’s most beloved characters, Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), as she evolves into the iconic Phoenix. During a rescue mission in space, Jean is hit by a cosmic force that transforms her into one of the most powerful mutants of all. Wrestling with this increasingly unstable power as well as her own personal demons, Jean spirals out of control, tearing the X-Men family apart and threatening to destroy the very fabric of our planet.
First things first – this is not a bad film. Yes, you heard me right. Leagues above Apocalypse and much better than The Last Stand, Dark Phoenix is a film that has been let down by catastrophically poor marketing. It’s not perfect, as we’ll discover in this review, but it tries a different approach, and for that it should be applauded.
For this reviewer, the modern day cast of characters has always been a weak spot for the series and that doesn’t really change in Dark Phoenix. James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier, especially since packing on the muscle for this Glass, but he performs much better here than he did in its predecessor. His transition into egotistical maniac, obsessed by the celebrity status the X-Men have acquired at the outset of the film is an intriguing diversion from where he was at the end of Apocalypse.
The younger cast are more likeable. Kodi Smitt-McPhee’s portrayal of Nightcrawler is fabulous and he gets more to do this time around. Tye Sheridan is great as young Cyclops and Evan Peters’ Quicksilver remains a highlight, though it’s unfortunate he’s cast aside relatively quickly – for fans of his set pieces from the previous two films, you’ll be disappointed here. Michael Fassbender and Nicholas Hoult bring their a-games, but they even seem a little bored by what’s going on. “You’re always sorry, Charles. And there’s always a speech. But nobody cares anymore!” bites Michael Fassbender at one point in the film – perhaps he’s onto something?
The first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past
Of the female cast, Sophie Turner does her best with the material she’s given, and her Jean Grey is full of anger, angst and melancholy. The script struggles to provide her with any other emotion, but she’s a pleasing protagonist for the most part. Unfortunately, Jennifer Lawrence completely phones in her performance as Mystique and Jessica Chastain’s horrifically underwritten villain wastes a fabulous actor in a thankless role – much like Oscar Issac in Apocalypse.
With reports of heavy reshoots, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the film would end up a royal mess. Thankfully, the first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past. Focusing on character development rather than all-out action, it’s a pleasing change and one which is more than welcome. Unfortunately, as time ticks away, the film loses all semblance of sanity and becomes muddled as it steamrolls towards an underwhelming climax.
And despite the reported budget of $200million, some of the shot choices and outfits feel cheap. It’s clear director Simon Kinberg is a fan of the series, but the X-Men costumes are bland, ill-fitting and a world away from what we’ve seen before. Closer to the comics they may be, but that’s not always a good thing. Elsewhere, the film feels cut-rate, almost TV-movie like and that’s a real shame because the special effects are top-notch. Mercifully, Hans Zimmer’s score is wonderful. The soaring orchestral soundtrack works brilliantly with the film – it’s probably the best music in the series to date.
Overall, X-Men: Dark Phoenix has been a victim of poor marketing with trailers that spoilt perhaps the most pivotal moment of the film (which we won’t spoil here). Nevertheless, the first hour is great and the special effects provide the film with some thrilling set pieces. It’s a shame then that the film offers up nothing new to the table despite some committed performances – this Phoenix just doesn’t quite rise to the occasion.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/06/07/x-men-dark-phoenix-review-goodbye-normal-jean/
Let’s not forget that the last time Fox tried to adapt this storyline we ended up with 2006’s The Last Stand, and the less said about that the better. Looking back over the last 20 years, the X-Men’s film franchise history has been chequered to say the least.
Nevertheless, this particular timeline that started with Matthew Vaughn’s adequate First Class, followed up by the excellent Days of Future Past and the flabby Apocalypse ends with Dark Phoenix. But is it worthy of your consideration?
This is the story of one of the X-Men’s most beloved characters, Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), as she evolves into the iconic Phoenix. During a rescue mission in space, Jean is hit by a cosmic force that transforms her into one of the most powerful mutants of all. Wrestling with this increasingly unstable power as well as her own personal demons, Jean spirals out of control, tearing the X-Men family apart and threatening to destroy the very fabric of our planet.
First things first – this is not a bad film. Yes, you heard me right. Leagues above Apocalypse and much better than The Last Stand, Dark Phoenix is a film that has been let down by catastrophically poor marketing. It’s not perfect, as we’ll discover in this review, but it tries a different approach, and for that it should be applauded.
For this reviewer, the modern day cast of characters has always been a weak spot for the series and that doesn’t really change in Dark Phoenix. James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier, especially since packing on the muscle for this Glass, but he performs much better here than he did in its predecessor. His transition into egotistical maniac, obsessed by the celebrity status the X-Men have acquired at the outset of the film is an intriguing diversion from where he was at the end of Apocalypse.
The younger cast are more likeable. Kodi Smitt-McPhee’s portrayal of Nightcrawler is fabulous and he gets more to do this time around. Tye Sheridan is great as young Cyclops and Evan Peters’ Quicksilver remains a highlight, though it’s unfortunate he’s cast aside relatively quickly – for fans of his set pieces from the previous two films, you’ll be disappointed here. Michael Fassbender and Nicholas Hoult bring their a-games, but they even seem a little bored by what’s going on. “You’re always sorry, Charles. And there’s always a speech. But nobody cares anymore!” bites Michael Fassbender at one point in the film – perhaps he’s onto something?
The first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past
Of the female cast, Sophie Turner does her best with the material she’s given, and her Jean Grey is full of anger, angst and melancholy. The script struggles to provide her with any other emotion, but she’s a pleasing protagonist for the most part. Unfortunately, Jennifer Lawrence completely phones in her performance as Mystique and Jessica Chastain’s horrifically underwritten villain wastes a fabulous actor in a thankless role – much like Oscar Issac in Apocalypse.
With reports of heavy reshoots, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the film would end up a royal mess. Thankfully, the first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past. Focusing on character development rather than all-out action, it’s a pleasing change and one which is more than welcome. Unfortunately, as time ticks away, the film loses all semblance of sanity and becomes muddled as it steamrolls towards an underwhelming climax.
And despite the reported budget of $200million, some of the shot choices and outfits feel cheap. It’s clear director Simon Kinberg is a fan of the series, but the X-Men costumes are bland, ill-fitting and a world away from what we’ve seen before. Closer to the comics they may be, but that’s not always a good thing. Elsewhere, the film feels cut-rate, almost TV-movie like and that’s a real shame because the special effects are top-notch. Mercifully, Hans Zimmer’s score is wonderful. The soaring orchestral soundtrack works brilliantly with the film – it’s probably the best music in the series to date.
Overall, X-Men: Dark Phoenix has been a victim of poor marketing with trailers that spoilt perhaps the most pivotal moment of the film (which we won’t spoil here). Nevertheless, the first hour is great and the special effects provide the film with some thrilling set pieces. It’s a shame then that the film offers up nothing new to the table despite some committed performances – this Phoenix just doesn’t quite rise to the occasion.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/06/07/x-men-dark-phoenix-review-goodbye-normal-jean/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Marvel just about manages to pull it off
With a touching tribute to the amazing Stan Lee, it’s clear from the outset that Captain Marvel isn’t going to be your ordinary MCU instalment, or so Marvel Studios would have us believe. The 21stfilm, yes, I can’t quite believe it either, in the long-standing Marvel Cinematic Universe, Captain Marvel is the first superhero film from the studio to focus primarily on a single female lead.
Astounding really that a franchise started by all intents and purposes way back in 2008 with Iron Man and has grossed billion after billion at the box-office hasn’t felt the need to offer a big tentpole movie to a female hero. But history aside, Captain Marvel has finally landed. Are we looking at one of Marvel’s greats?
Captain Marvel (Brie Larson) is an extra-terrestrial Kree warrior who finds herself caught in the middle of an intergalactic battle between her people and the Skrulls. Living on Earth in 1995, she keeps having recurring memories of another life as U.S. Air Force pilot Carol Danvers. With help from Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson), Captain Marvel tries to uncover the secrets of her past while harnessing her special superpowers to end the war with the evil Skrulls.
Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck in their first big-budget blockbuster, Captain Marvel shows, if you’ll pardon the pun, flecks of brilliance while battling a fairly average origins story for what could be described as Marvel’s most powerful hero.
Where it does shine throughout is in its casting. We’ll get to the titular hero shortly but Samuel L Jackson’s performance across the film is exceptional. Beautifully de-aged without the off-putting uncanny valley treatment we occasionally get with these types of visual effects, he’s a highlight of the film and the chemistry he shares with Larson is believable and enjoyable to watch.
Clearly not afraid of being typecast is Ben Mendelsohn who has played some tremendous villains over the course of his career. From Rogue One to Ready Player One, the Australian actor clearly feels right at home as Skrull leader, Talos.
Though hidden behind layers of prosthetics for the majority of the movie, he comes across much better than poor Oscar Issac did in X-Men: Apocalypse. Unfortunately, the film does lack a menacing villain throughout however, but this isn’t down to Mendelsohn’s performance which is spot on.
While the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality
Brie Larson is good, but her story arc is hampered by a bout of amnesia, used to progress the story. It’s a poor scripting decision by the film’s five writers but a necessary one to deal with all the Marvel lore and baggage that comes with creating the 21staddition to a very interlinked series. It’s a shame that this is the case as Larson shares wonderful chemistry with all her co-stars and is let down by her at-times clunky dialogue.
When it comes to the visual effects, we’ve got a story of two halves. This is a $152million movie and with that comes a set of expectations that just aren’t fulfilled consistently enough. Some of the CGI used is incredibly poor and the Kree’s home planet of Hala feels hollow – worlds away from Sakaar and Nova Prime from other Marvel outings. It could almost be compared to that of the Star Wars sequels, though perhaps that’s being a little too harsh.
The cinematography too is bland. Ben Davis is one of the finest cinematographers working in the industry and has put his name to films like Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, Kick-Ass and Avengers: Age of Ultron to name but a few. But here, he seems to lack that flair he’s so often known for and while the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality.
Thankfully Captain Marvel retains that classic Marvel sense of humour that we all know and love and there are some genuinely touching moments as the titular hero begins to remember who she is. It also feels very much of the era it’s set in and that’s great. 90s music and a real 90s feel emanate from the screen and it’s here that the film scores highly.
Overall, Captain Marvel is a competent but not outstanding origins story that lacks consistent visual effects, a truly compelling script and engaging cinematography. While it is difficult to warm to Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers at times, it is testament to her acting ability that she remains likeable throughout – it’s just a shame that Marvel hasn’t quite managed to pull it off completely this time around.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/08/captain-marvel-review-marvel-just-about-manages-to-pull-it-off/
Astounding really that a franchise started by all intents and purposes way back in 2008 with Iron Man and has grossed billion after billion at the box-office hasn’t felt the need to offer a big tentpole movie to a female hero. But history aside, Captain Marvel has finally landed. Are we looking at one of Marvel’s greats?
Captain Marvel (Brie Larson) is an extra-terrestrial Kree warrior who finds herself caught in the middle of an intergalactic battle between her people and the Skrulls. Living on Earth in 1995, she keeps having recurring memories of another life as U.S. Air Force pilot Carol Danvers. With help from Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson), Captain Marvel tries to uncover the secrets of her past while harnessing her special superpowers to end the war with the evil Skrulls.
Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck in their first big-budget blockbuster, Captain Marvel shows, if you’ll pardon the pun, flecks of brilliance while battling a fairly average origins story for what could be described as Marvel’s most powerful hero.
Where it does shine throughout is in its casting. We’ll get to the titular hero shortly but Samuel L Jackson’s performance across the film is exceptional. Beautifully de-aged without the off-putting uncanny valley treatment we occasionally get with these types of visual effects, he’s a highlight of the film and the chemistry he shares with Larson is believable and enjoyable to watch.
Clearly not afraid of being typecast is Ben Mendelsohn who has played some tremendous villains over the course of his career. From Rogue One to Ready Player One, the Australian actor clearly feels right at home as Skrull leader, Talos.
Though hidden behind layers of prosthetics for the majority of the movie, he comes across much better than poor Oscar Issac did in X-Men: Apocalypse. Unfortunately, the film does lack a menacing villain throughout however, but this isn’t down to Mendelsohn’s performance which is spot on.
While the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality
Brie Larson is good, but her story arc is hampered by a bout of amnesia, used to progress the story. It’s a poor scripting decision by the film’s five writers but a necessary one to deal with all the Marvel lore and baggage that comes with creating the 21staddition to a very interlinked series. It’s a shame that this is the case as Larson shares wonderful chemistry with all her co-stars and is let down by her at-times clunky dialogue.
When it comes to the visual effects, we’ve got a story of two halves. This is a $152million movie and with that comes a set of expectations that just aren’t fulfilled consistently enough. Some of the CGI used is incredibly poor and the Kree’s home planet of Hala feels hollow – worlds away from Sakaar and Nova Prime from other Marvel outings. It could almost be compared to that of the Star Wars sequels, though perhaps that’s being a little too harsh.
The cinematography too is bland. Ben Davis is one of the finest cinematographers working in the industry and has put his name to films like Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, Kick-Ass and Avengers: Age of Ultron to name but a few. But here, he seems to lack that flair he’s so often known for and while the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality.
Thankfully Captain Marvel retains that classic Marvel sense of humour that we all know and love and there are some genuinely touching moments as the titular hero begins to remember who she is. It also feels very much of the era it’s set in and that’s great. 90s music and a real 90s feel emanate from the screen and it’s here that the film scores highly.
Overall, Captain Marvel is a competent but not outstanding origins story that lacks consistent visual effects, a truly compelling script and engaging cinematography. While it is difficult to warm to Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers at times, it is testament to her acting ability that she remains likeable throughout – it’s just a shame that Marvel hasn’t quite managed to pull it off completely this time around.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/08/captain-marvel-review-marvel-just-about-manages-to-pull-it-off/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Has pixar got it's mojo back?
Pixar has been on something of a downward trend of late, and that’s something I never thought I’d say. As much as it hurts, films like Cars 3, Finding Dory and The Good Dinosaur just don’t cut the mustard when compared to some of the studio’s greats.
Movies like Up, Inside Out and Wall.E as well as The Incredibles, which we’re finally getting a sequel to this year, are up there with the best animations ever produced, never mind just from Pixar. Hoping to get back on the right track this year, Pixar has released Coco. But are we back up to scratch?
Before we begin. Did you know you can now vote in the third annual Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars? Vote for your favourite films from last year!
Despite his family’s generations-old ban on music, young Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colourful Land of the Dead. After meeting a charming trickster named Héctor (Gael García Bernal), the two new friends embark on an extraordinary journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel’s family history.
The first thing of note is just how stunning Coco is to look at. Director Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 3) creates what could be Pixar’s finest looking film to date, it really is that staggering to watch. The colourful world of the Land of the Dead is astounding and it’s pleasing that he chooses to spend the majority of the film’s runtime here. Populated by vibrant animals and the living dead, it grabs attention from scene to scene and isn’t afraid to hold on.
The animation itself is spot on, but come on, this is Pixar we’re talking about, we expect nothing less. They really are getting very good at this photo-realistic scenery business and aside from the naturally carnival-esque Land of the Dead, it reeks of realism. The characters too are rendered in ridiculously detailed CGI with the work done on Coco herself being absolutely exquisite. Every well-deserved wrinkle and the remaining twinkle in her eyes – it’s all there.
Aside from all the spectacle though, at its heart, Coco is a film about family, and the importance of family no matter how annoying or frustrating they can be. This may sound a little straightforward in comparison to some of Pixar’s more mature themes, but it’s worth noting that the plot has more twists and turns in it than some of the best thrillers – it’s a brilliant story full of laughs and emotion.
The voice work done by the entire cast is absolutely sublime, but Anthony Gonzalez’s portrayal of Miguel is beautiful. His performance is perfectly integrated into the film as Miguel slowly unravels who he truly is – it’s a testament to the actors and actresses who lent their voices that it speaks to absolutely everyone in the audience.
Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story
Naturally, Pixar’s trademark wit and heart are here in spades. There are some genuinely funny moments that are beautifully juxtaposed with some more sombre scenes that make you realise just how important family is. Correctly awarded a PG certification by the BBFC means that smaller children may find some of the more adult themes a little hard to watch. In fact, there were a few children in floods of tears as I left the cinema.
Pacing wise, Coco is just about right for a family friendly film. At a shade under 110 minutes, it zips along smoothly, very rarely letting up pace. But Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story. In this respect, it’s up there with the very best the studio has to offer us.
It is unfortunate however that there is no Pixar Short attached to Coco. Films like Inside Out and Toy Story 3 had brilliant pre-movie films to get the kids interested in what they were about to see on screen. It’s not clear why Pixar chose to snub Coco like this, but that’s one of the only negative points in a film filled to the brim with memorable moments.
Overall, Pixar is well and truly back on track with Coco. They’ve managed to create a film that not only creates some new classic characters for the studio to bring back in a sequel, but they discuss life and death in a way that adults and children alike will enjoy. Couple this with a beautiful soundtrack with some gorgeous original songs, stunning animation and a heartfelt story and they’ve definitely recovered the animation crown. What a way to start 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/13/coco-review-has-pixar-got-its-mojo-back/
Movies like Up, Inside Out and Wall.E as well as The Incredibles, which we’re finally getting a sequel to this year, are up there with the best animations ever produced, never mind just from Pixar. Hoping to get back on the right track this year, Pixar has released Coco. But are we back up to scratch?
Before we begin. Did you know you can now vote in the third annual Movie Metropolis Alternative Oscars? Vote for your favourite films from last year!
Despite his family’s generations-old ban on music, young Miguel (Anthony Gonzalez) dreams of becoming an accomplished musician like his idol Ernesto de la Cruz (Benjamin Bratt). Desperate to prove his talent, Miguel finds himself in the stunning and colourful Land of the Dead. After meeting a charming trickster named Héctor (Gael García Bernal), the two new friends embark on an extraordinary journey to unlock the real story behind Miguel’s family history.
The first thing of note is just how stunning Coco is to look at. Director Lee Unkrich (Toy Story 3) creates what could be Pixar’s finest looking film to date, it really is that staggering to watch. The colourful world of the Land of the Dead is astounding and it’s pleasing that he chooses to spend the majority of the film’s runtime here. Populated by vibrant animals and the living dead, it grabs attention from scene to scene and isn’t afraid to hold on.
The animation itself is spot on, but come on, this is Pixar we’re talking about, we expect nothing less. They really are getting very good at this photo-realistic scenery business and aside from the naturally carnival-esque Land of the Dead, it reeks of realism. The characters too are rendered in ridiculously detailed CGI with the work done on Coco herself being absolutely exquisite. Every well-deserved wrinkle and the remaining twinkle in her eyes – it’s all there.
Aside from all the spectacle though, at its heart, Coco is a film about family, and the importance of family no matter how annoying or frustrating they can be. This may sound a little straightforward in comparison to some of Pixar’s more mature themes, but it’s worth noting that the plot has more twists and turns in it than some of the best thrillers – it’s a brilliant story full of laughs and emotion.
The voice work done by the entire cast is absolutely sublime, but Anthony Gonzalez’s portrayal of Miguel is beautiful. His performance is perfectly integrated into the film as Miguel slowly unravels who he truly is – it’s a testament to the actors and actresses who lent their voices that it speaks to absolutely everyone in the audience.
Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story
Naturally, Pixar’s trademark wit and heart are here in spades. There are some genuinely funny moments that are beautifully juxtaposed with some more sombre scenes that make you realise just how important family is. Correctly awarded a PG certification by the BBFC means that smaller children may find some of the more adult themes a little hard to watch. In fact, there were a few children in floods of tears as I left the cinema.
Pacing wise, Coco is just about right for a family friendly film. At a shade under 110 minutes, it zips along smoothly, very rarely letting up pace. But Pixar films have never really been about moving from one set piece to another and what keeps Coco interesting is the constant shifts in tone, colour and story. In this respect, it’s up there with the very best the studio has to offer us.
It is unfortunate however that there is no Pixar Short attached to Coco. Films like Inside Out and Toy Story 3 had brilliant pre-movie films to get the kids interested in what they were about to see on screen. It’s not clear why Pixar chose to snub Coco like this, but that’s one of the only negative points in a film filled to the brim with memorable moments.
Overall, Pixar is well and truly back on track with Coco. They’ve managed to create a film that not only creates some new classic characters for the studio to bring back in a sequel, but they discuss life and death in a way that adults and children alike will enjoy. Couple this with a beautiful soundtrack with some gorgeous original songs, stunning animation and a heartfelt story and they’ve definitely recovered the animation crown. What a way to start 2018.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/01/13/coco-review-has-pixar-got-its-mojo-back/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated I, Robot (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Tales of a dark and foreboding future where technology has run amuck have been cautioning viewers ever since Orwell made the phrase “Big Brother” a household expression. Other films such as ?”, “Westworld”, “Blade Runner” and “The Terminator” often show a dark and dangerous future where dependence upon technology created to serve mankind has lead to its eventual downfall.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019
The film Tarantino was born to make
ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD is the film that Quentin Tarantino was born to make and it is his Masterpiece.
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Your enjoyment of this film will be in direct correlation with how you reacted to the previous statement.
Lovingly set in Hollywood of the late 1960's, OUATIH tells the tale of 3 performers in LaLa Land who's stories are undercut by - and eventually intersect with - the growing dread of the Hippie CounterCulture of the time and, specifically, the Charles Manson cult that would erupt in violence.
Leonardo DiCaprio stars as fading Cowboy star Rick Dalton who has been relegated to guest starring villain roles on TV and is contemplating a move to Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns. This is DiCaprio's strongest acting job in (perhaps) his career and one that showcases his range as a performer - and he nails it. His Rick Dalton is a real human being. Sometimes confident, often times at odds with himself, and filled with self doubt. It is a bravura performance, one that I am confident we will be hearing a lot more of come Awards season.
Ably counterbalancing him - and providing the strong core to this film - is Brad Pitt's Cliff Booth, Rick Dalton's stunt double, who is just trying to live day to day. He is the quintessential Hollywood/California "whatever" dude who blows with wherever the wind blows him - including into questionable places. This is Pitt's strongest performance in (perhaps) his career as well - and if Pitt wasn't there to provide the strength and core to this film than DiCaprio's performance would be seen as cartoonish and over-the-top, but this counterbalance is there, which strengthens both performances. I'm afraid that DiCaprio will win all the Acting Awards accolades (his part is much more flashy/flamboyant), but I think Pitt is every bit as good and I would LOVE to see his name called during Awards season.
There are many, many actors making extended cameos in this film, from members of the Tarantino "stock company" like Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern, Kurt Russell and Zoe Bell to newcomers Timothy Olyphant, Emile Hirsch, Margaret Qualley, Dakota Fanning and Al Pacino - all have a scene (or 2) that (I'm sure) each actor saw as "delicious" and their willingness to go along with whatever Tarantino wanted them to do is apparent on the screen.
Faring less well is Margot Robbie in the underwritten role of real-life actress Sharon Tate who met her death at the hands of the Manson cult (this isn't a spoiler, it's a footnote in history). Her role is tangential to the main story of the DiCaprio/Pitt characters and it feels...tangential. Robbie does what she can with the role, but she is under-served by the script and direction of Tarantino.
So let's talk about writer/director Quentin Tarantino. A self-described "movie buff", Tarantino spares no detail in showing the audience the sights and sounds of a bygone era - Hollywood in the days of transition from the studio system to a more "television-centric" system. His visuals are wonderful and you spend the first 2 1/2 hours of this 2 hour, 45 minute film meandering through scenes/scenarios/people that are filled with mood and atmosphere and REALLY, REALLY GREAT music, but don't really seem to go anywhere. I was (pleasantly) surprised by how little violence/blood is involved in this and I give Tarantino - the director - credit. For he plays with audiences expectations of him, this movie and the actual, real-life events of this time. While this film is an homage to specific time, it is undercut by an impending sense of doom that keeps you on edge. It is the journey, not the destination that is the joy of this part of the film.
But, when all these disparate storylines/scenerios/characters and events eventually collide, the final 15-20 minutes of this film is quintessential Tarantino - exploding in violence that is horrific, bloody - and damned funny. It is an auteur in full control of his faculties and he controls the items in his "play-set" superbly to bring this film to a very satisfying climax for me.
But...this film is not for everyone. Some will LOVE the first 2 1/2 hours and HATE the last 15-20 minutes while others will LOVE the last 15-20 minutes, but wonder why they had to suffer through the first 2 1/2 hours. For me, I LOVED IT ALL. It is one of the very best Writer/Directors of our time operating at the top of his game - driving some "A-List" actors to career-best performances.
And that's good enough for me.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Man of Steel (2013) in Movies
May 21, 2019
"It's not an s on my world it means hope"
Superman's origin has been retold in comics more than any other character. But how do you reboot such a beloved icon in film form without making his origin feel unnecessary to go through again. By handing him over to the masters of all reboots. While developing the story for The Dark Knight Rises, Director Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer developed a new way to bring the man of steel to life. The duo previously saved Batman and made him a cinematic legend again and now they plan to save Superman from uneven sequels and a stale image. And who did they invite to lead this revival? None other than director Zack Snyder, a visual wizard with a lackluster reputation in storytelling thanks to his remake of Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen and Sucker Punch. Now despite some filmmaking stumbles along the way, the trio make for a surprisingly great combination and deliver the modern Superman film we have waited 75 years for with Man of Steel. We are given both Superman and a Clark Kent who doesn't know his place in the world and is coming to terms with how the public perceives him.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Mandalorian in TV
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Being a child of Star Wars, born in ’73, whose first memory of a cinema was A New Hope in ’77, of course the entire franchise is still close to my heart. I am no superfan, however. I do not need to remember every name of every character, or know the obscure names of planets to enjoy it. I remember that deeply competitive nature back in the playground – how important it was to prove Star Wars was yours by knowing more than any other kid! Fortunately I managed to let that go shortly after The Return of the Jedi. Ok, maybe 1995.
The Mandalorian is definitely for all Star Wars fans, but it is mostly for the kids that never grew up and need those details of “the canonical Star Wars” universe in their lives. And there are plenty of them. It is a geek’s wet dream! With chat rooms and fan sites going wild in debate and argument over the smallest of Easter eggs and hints to connections across the medium. As if this is a lost historical document that sheds light on the truth of many characters and events, that until now were shrouded in darkness and speculation only.
I find that phenomenon weird and a little creepy, but I do appreciate where it comes from. For me, I am merely glad it isn’t crap. It is nice to be in the Star Wars universe without holding your face in your hands for shame of lazy storytelling and moments that shit on the spirit of the original trilogy. The first thing that pleased me about The Mandolorian is how close it is in feel to the old school trilogy. In fact it surprised me, because, despite the very modern effects and full budget of Disney behind it, it feels very old fashioned, like a TV show from around 1986, maybe. And I wonder how they have achieved that every time I watch it. It has an intangible magic about it.
In fact, the feel of the show as a whole is often a little cheap, shockingly – the posters and toys and all associated media is as glossy and crisp as all money can afford, creating an image of the show that isn’t actually what the show is. In reality it is a cross between old spaghetti westerns, with The Mandalorian cast as The Man With No Name, and episodes of The A-Team or Knightrider. I kinda like it; very nostalgic, and a smart move by Jon Favreau and the other show-runners. It appeals to middle aged audiences and new alike, because it is a knowing hybrid of all things cool and nerdy!
Design-wise, the look of The Mandalorian himself is perfect fan bait and very cool. The music goes a long way to drawing you in – Ludwig Göransson, known for his work on Black Panther and Tenet, has hit on a career defining theme that blends Clint Eastwood and Star Wars in perfect harmony. I can’t imagine the show working half as well without that theme music! The spaceships and detail of every alien and weapon and costume is meticulous (if at times a little wobbly or cheap looking), and the wider feel of background and tertiary characters is pretty damn good.
But, let’s face it… The Mandalorian is the success it has been predominantly for one reason. I could give him his real name, but if you haven’t finished it yet that would count as a huge spoiler, so I will refer to him as The Child. The temptation to use the phrase Baby Yoda is hard to resist, and has been a cultural phenomenon that only comes along once or twice in a decade, but on this I agree with the fans: it is inaccurate and misleading. The Child is fine. It’ll do until you learn his true moniker.
In season one, where the build up of story, character and mystery is superb, we see very little of The Child at first. But we cannot take our eyes off him for every second he is on screen. The whole concept is so beyond cute and incredibly strong as a hook for a Star Wars story it is almost impossible not to squeal out loud at everything he does. Who is he? Why is he? What is he capable of? How will he fit in to the longterm idea for the story? So exciting, and total genius to keep everyone watching.
It isn’t all about The Child on his own though. It is about the unlikely symbiotic bond, like father and son, that develops between the tiny, vulnerable and childlike focal point, and the increasingly confident and loyal antihero, who will stop at nothing to protect his ward, as he struggles to find his own place in the universe. After a very short time, we care more about this relationship than 90% of all romances in all of TV history.
Through danger, mayhem and a touch of comedy, we grow to adore the two of them together, and can’t bear to think of them being apart. Some trick when you realise The Child is as much a mini-muppet style prosthetic as it is added CGI for expression and detail. Perhaps another callback to our 80s sensibilities, when we accepted ETs and Gremlins and all of the residents of Mos Eisley’s cantina as real without hesitation. It doesn’t have to look real, is the point, as long as it fits the story, is cool and is fun! Which The Child totally is – for entertainment value they have got the tone of the show so right.
What doesn’t hold up that strongly to critical scrutiny though is quite a lot of the scripts, the repetitive nature of the context of many episodes and missions the duo find themselves on, the mismatch quality of the guest directors abilities, and quite a lot of the dodgy acting by supporting characters. It’s as if at some production meeting at one early point they all said, look it’s Star Wars, we make the aliens and the spaceships and the weapons look good and we can’t fail… plus we have The Child and Boba Fett’s (yes, I know) armour, we can’t fail!
The basic storyline is enough to hook it on, just about, it is the detail that sometimes feels weak and lazy. But don’t worry, any minute something cool to look at and a big fight will happen, so we’re all good! I’m sure Pedro Pascal (the actor under the armour) can’t believe his luck! He is one of the biggest stars in TV all of a sudden, for basically doing a fairly monotone voice-over performance of some seriously dodgy dialogue. That is the magic of Star Wars.
So, I came to season one late, having no access at that time to Disney plus. In fact, I watched all of season one in a day the day before the launch of season two, so the switch to a new episode to look forward to suited me well. It gave me something to look forward to on a Friday between Halloween and Christmas. Trouble was that, although still having fun with the exploits of The Kid, I was starting to weary of the plotlines, and put my viewing on hold after S2E4 in favour of the far superior scripting of His Dark Materials on BBC.
I must have needed the hiatus, because when I came back to mop it up and finish season two a few days ago I realised that I had in fact missed it. It also helped that episode 5 onwards is when the season gets really good again. Rosario Dawson as Ashoka Tano (known well by fans of The Clone Wars) was a truly great addition that the show much needed by that point.
I had no trouble after that in bingeing to the end. You could feel a climax and a revelation coming, and although the character of Moff Gideon (Giancarlo Esposito) crumbled disappointly away into nothing much, the last 15 minutes of the final episode had me slack jawed in fan wonderment. I felt 9 years old again, and I loved it! I had been amazingly lucky not to stumble upon spoilers, I guess. Amazing ending, and all faults forgiven for that unforgettable moment and feel. Wonderful stuff!
To say any more, again, is to spoil. So, let’s just talk about it privately, or, you know, in about a year when season 3 is over and it is old news. Hmmm, season 3…? I wonder where they will take that now…? Actually, properly exciting, in a back in the playground kind of way.
The Mandalorian is definitely for all Star Wars fans, but it is mostly for the kids that never grew up and need those details of “the canonical Star Wars” universe in their lives. And there are plenty of them. It is a geek’s wet dream! With chat rooms and fan sites going wild in debate and argument over the smallest of Easter eggs and hints to connections across the medium. As if this is a lost historical document that sheds light on the truth of many characters and events, that until now were shrouded in darkness and speculation only.
I find that phenomenon weird and a little creepy, but I do appreciate where it comes from. For me, I am merely glad it isn’t crap. It is nice to be in the Star Wars universe without holding your face in your hands for shame of lazy storytelling and moments that shit on the spirit of the original trilogy. The first thing that pleased me about The Mandolorian is how close it is in feel to the old school trilogy. In fact it surprised me, because, despite the very modern effects and full budget of Disney behind it, it feels very old fashioned, like a TV show from around 1986, maybe. And I wonder how they have achieved that every time I watch it. It has an intangible magic about it.
In fact, the feel of the show as a whole is often a little cheap, shockingly – the posters and toys and all associated media is as glossy and crisp as all money can afford, creating an image of the show that isn’t actually what the show is. In reality it is a cross between old spaghetti westerns, with The Mandalorian cast as The Man With No Name, and episodes of The A-Team or Knightrider. I kinda like it; very nostalgic, and a smart move by Jon Favreau and the other show-runners. It appeals to middle aged audiences and new alike, because it is a knowing hybrid of all things cool and nerdy!
Design-wise, the look of The Mandalorian himself is perfect fan bait and very cool. The music goes a long way to drawing you in – Ludwig Göransson, known for his work on Black Panther and Tenet, has hit on a career defining theme that blends Clint Eastwood and Star Wars in perfect harmony. I can’t imagine the show working half as well without that theme music! The spaceships and detail of every alien and weapon and costume is meticulous (if at times a little wobbly or cheap looking), and the wider feel of background and tertiary characters is pretty damn good.
But, let’s face it… The Mandalorian is the success it has been predominantly for one reason. I could give him his real name, but if you haven’t finished it yet that would count as a huge spoiler, so I will refer to him as The Child. The temptation to use the phrase Baby Yoda is hard to resist, and has been a cultural phenomenon that only comes along once or twice in a decade, but on this I agree with the fans: it is inaccurate and misleading. The Child is fine. It’ll do until you learn his true moniker.
In season one, where the build up of story, character and mystery is superb, we see very little of The Child at first. But we cannot take our eyes off him for every second he is on screen. The whole concept is so beyond cute and incredibly strong as a hook for a Star Wars story it is almost impossible not to squeal out loud at everything he does. Who is he? Why is he? What is he capable of? How will he fit in to the longterm idea for the story? So exciting, and total genius to keep everyone watching.
It isn’t all about The Child on his own though. It is about the unlikely symbiotic bond, like father and son, that develops between the tiny, vulnerable and childlike focal point, and the increasingly confident and loyal antihero, who will stop at nothing to protect his ward, as he struggles to find his own place in the universe. After a very short time, we care more about this relationship than 90% of all romances in all of TV history.
Through danger, mayhem and a touch of comedy, we grow to adore the two of them together, and can’t bear to think of them being apart. Some trick when you realise The Child is as much a mini-muppet style prosthetic as it is added CGI for expression and detail. Perhaps another callback to our 80s sensibilities, when we accepted ETs and Gremlins and all of the residents of Mos Eisley’s cantina as real without hesitation. It doesn’t have to look real, is the point, as long as it fits the story, is cool and is fun! Which The Child totally is – for entertainment value they have got the tone of the show so right.
What doesn’t hold up that strongly to critical scrutiny though is quite a lot of the scripts, the repetitive nature of the context of many episodes and missions the duo find themselves on, the mismatch quality of the guest directors abilities, and quite a lot of the dodgy acting by supporting characters. It’s as if at some production meeting at one early point they all said, look it’s Star Wars, we make the aliens and the spaceships and the weapons look good and we can’t fail… plus we have The Child and Boba Fett’s (yes, I know) armour, we can’t fail!
The basic storyline is enough to hook it on, just about, it is the detail that sometimes feels weak and lazy. But don’t worry, any minute something cool to look at and a big fight will happen, so we’re all good! I’m sure Pedro Pascal (the actor under the armour) can’t believe his luck! He is one of the biggest stars in TV all of a sudden, for basically doing a fairly monotone voice-over performance of some seriously dodgy dialogue. That is the magic of Star Wars.
So, I came to season one late, having no access at that time to Disney plus. In fact, I watched all of season one in a day the day before the launch of season two, so the switch to a new episode to look forward to suited me well. It gave me something to look forward to on a Friday between Halloween and Christmas. Trouble was that, although still having fun with the exploits of The Kid, I was starting to weary of the plotlines, and put my viewing on hold after S2E4 in favour of the far superior scripting of His Dark Materials on BBC.
I must have needed the hiatus, because when I came back to mop it up and finish season two a few days ago I realised that I had in fact missed it. It also helped that episode 5 onwards is when the season gets really good again. Rosario Dawson as Ashoka Tano (known well by fans of The Clone Wars) was a truly great addition that the show much needed by that point.
I had no trouble after that in bingeing to the end. You could feel a climax and a revelation coming, and although the character of Moff Gideon (Giancarlo Esposito) crumbled disappointly away into nothing much, the last 15 minutes of the final episode had me slack jawed in fan wonderment. I felt 9 years old again, and I loved it! I had been amazingly lucky not to stumble upon spoilers, I guess. Amazing ending, and all faults forgiven for that unforgettable moment and feel. Wonderful stuff!
To say any more, again, is to spoil. So, let’s just talk about it privately, or, you know, in about a year when season 3 is over and it is old news. Hmmm, season 3…? I wonder where they will take that now…? Actually, properly exciting, in a back in the playground kind of way.
Rob P (30 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 6, 2019
Sheer scope and spectacle (2 more)
satisfying conclusion to the Infinity/Avengers saga
Pretty much a 90 minute end battle scene
Unfair arc for some characters (1 more)
The end of an era! #cry
Love you 3000 - *Seriously - S P O I L E R S*
Contains spoilers, click to show
Well, what a long, strange, amazing trip it's been.
Assuming that everyone who sees this film is invested in the MCU, this doesn't disappoint. Although I'm a fan of the comics, you can't really compare the comic universe to the cinematic universe in terms of plot, it stands alone with its own intricacies, strengths and weaknesses.
I don't have a lot of negative things to say about this one, it's an involving, dramatic, action packed and beautiful piece of work from the Russo brothers, but I'll start with the one or two gripes I had.
From the start, they went with an odd route, one that I wasn't expecting . *SPOILERS* - Thanos as we know him, dies in the first 15 minutes of the film. Honestly was not expecting that. Robbed the satisfaction of build up for me, but ultimately the build up starts again, as the Avengers then go about stopping an alternate timeline Thanos from BEFORE the events of Guardians of the Galaxy by going to retrieve the infinity stones from different points in time (and the MCU movies), before Thanos finds them, so all is not lost on that front, there's still a Thanos to face.
One gripe was the arc of one particular character - our big green rage machine. After the events of infinity war, you'll remember, Hulk was left somewhat lacking, after getting his arse handed to him by Thanos and then refusing to come out for the rest of the film. I felt there was atonement due for him. Here we see Banner has now found catharsis with the Hulk, by staying in Hulk form with his own personality in the five years since the snap. That's all well and good, but after the death of a certain other member of the Avengers after retrieving the Soulstone, I thought - right. Now Hulk will smash. Now we have to see him go ham on someone. Nothing. Not even an action shot of Hulk fighting in the entire last battle scene, which only would have taken 20 seconds out of an entire 90 minute battle. I would have liked to have seen Hulk Vs Thanos, even if for a brief moment, whether Banner came out on top or not. Banner actually using his own anger, which by his own admission in Avengers Assemble, he has. All the time. It felt an unfair way to end one of the major characters stories, for seemingly what would have taken so little to make. it's not like they lacked the CGI budget, after all. Instead, Scarlet Witch gets a showdown with Thanos, and she's not even a particularly major player within the Avengers team, again don't get me wrong, after Vision she deserves a shot. But Hulk more so... It seemed silly to me.
The other negative for me, was Thor. Another slightly disappointing arc for the god of thunder. I felt he was robbed of all the awesomeness Taika rejuvenated him with from Ragnarok, which then continued into Infinity War. They turned him into God of amazing lightning and patron saint of badassery, with a new axe that just gives him a look as cool as they other side of the pillow. Now, the Russo's have had him drink himself to death, making him bloated and filled with sadness and regret. Don't get me wrong. Thor has more reason than most to be that way, he's lost everything over his story arc. I think that by letting him kill Thanos at the beginning, they robbed him of his real purpose, which is to be the strongest of the avengers (arguably) and just be the badass we all know he is. The one positive thing about this, is Thor's new aesthetic actually makes him look like a viking, which was amazing. Braided beard, heavy set, long hair. Great stuff, made him feel much more realistic in that sense, just again I think it was a bit of an unfair arc for him. Although, as he's now set to join GOTG, there's plenty of time to atone.
That's my two cents on the negs of this one. Now for positives:
My god, the scope and sheer spectacle of the MCU films rarely disappoint, this is no exception. just some absolutely jaw dropping sequences, especially when you have the big three (Stark, Cap and Thor) trying to stop Thanos before the major battle scene. It's stuff to make you weep tears of pure joy.
Following on from that, the moment where it's confirmed the snap has been reversed and the portals open up, the armies of Wakanda come out chanting along with just EVERYBODY, and that Avengers music starts up... goosebumps just thinking about it.
The involvement and rounding of previous MCU films in the first half of the movie is intense and satisfying, as the group split up into different places in time to retrieve the stones. Lots of nods to different franchises, nice bit of exposition, and certain parts in particular are just happy, like seeing Tony talking to his father back in the 70's without him realising who he is. Wonderful Stuff.
We all knew there would be deaths, I felt that these were handled gracefully and tactfully, giving the best service for the characters and fans. At the same time, they were not predictable, which i felt was definitely important.
As a last word, anyone who's ever watched a marvel film or had interest in the comics needs to see this. There is a list published of the films you need to see beforehand to fully appreciate the time travel segments, but it's not absolutely necessary. It just helps you appreciate the thought that has gone into rounding off the biggest cinematic series in history, all the in jokes and nuances that the Russo's included to really make this serviceable to the fans.
The end of an era, and as a crescendo to the the symphony started by the rest of MCU, it's just plain beautiful.
Love you 3000, folks.
- Rob
Assuming that everyone who sees this film is invested in the MCU, this doesn't disappoint. Although I'm a fan of the comics, you can't really compare the comic universe to the cinematic universe in terms of plot, it stands alone with its own intricacies, strengths and weaknesses.
I don't have a lot of negative things to say about this one, it's an involving, dramatic, action packed and beautiful piece of work from the Russo brothers, but I'll start with the one or two gripes I had.
From the start, they went with an odd route, one that I wasn't expecting . *SPOILERS* - Thanos as we know him, dies in the first 15 minutes of the film. Honestly was not expecting that. Robbed the satisfaction of build up for me, but ultimately the build up starts again, as the Avengers then go about stopping an alternate timeline Thanos from BEFORE the events of Guardians of the Galaxy by going to retrieve the infinity stones from different points in time (and the MCU movies), before Thanos finds them, so all is not lost on that front, there's still a Thanos to face.
One gripe was the arc of one particular character - our big green rage machine. After the events of infinity war, you'll remember, Hulk was left somewhat lacking, after getting his arse handed to him by Thanos and then refusing to come out for the rest of the film. I felt there was atonement due for him. Here we see Banner has now found catharsis with the Hulk, by staying in Hulk form with his own personality in the five years since the snap. That's all well and good, but after the death of a certain other member of the Avengers after retrieving the Soulstone, I thought - right. Now Hulk will smash. Now we have to see him go ham on someone. Nothing. Not even an action shot of Hulk fighting in the entire last battle scene, which only would have taken 20 seconds out of an entire 90 minute battle. I would have liked to have seen Hulk Vs Thanos, even if for a brief moment, whether Banner came out on top or not. Banner actually using his own anger, which by his own admission in Avengers Assemble, he has. All the time. It felt an unfair way to end one of the major characters stories, for seemingly what would have taken so little to make. it's not like they lacked the CGI budget, after all. Instead, Scarlet Witch gets a showdown with Thanos, and she's not even a particularly major player within the Avengers team, again don't get me wrong, after Vision she deserves a shot. But Hulk more so... It seemed silly to me.
The other negative for me, was Thor. Another slightly disappointing arc for the god of thunder. I felt he was robbed of all the awesomeness Taika rejuvenated him with from Ragnarok, which then continued into Infinity War. They turned him into God of amazing lightning and patron saint of badassery, with a new axe that just gives him a look as cool as they other side of the pillow. Now, the Russo's have had him drink himself to death, making him bloated and filled with sadness and regret. Don't get me wrong. Thor has more reason than most to be that way, he's lost everything over his story arc. I think that by letting him kill Thanos at the beginning, they robbed him of his real purpose, which is to be the strongest of the avengers (arguably) and just be the badass we all know he is. The one positive thing about this, is Thor's new aesthetic actually makes him look like a viking, which was amazing. Braided beard, heavy set, long hair. Great stuff, made him feel much more realistic in that sense, just again I think it was a bit of an unfair arc for him. Although, as he's now set to join GOTG, there's plenty of time to atone.
That's my two cents on the negs of this one. Now for positives:
My god, the scope and sheer spectacle of the MCU films rarely disappoint, this is no exception. just some absolutely jaw dropping sequences, especially when you have the big three (Stark, Cap and Thor) trying to stop Thanos before the major battle scene. It's stuff to make you weep tears of pure joy.
Following on from that, the moment where it's confirmed the snap has been reversed and the portals open up, the armies of Wakanda come out chanting along with just EVERYBODY, and that Avengers music starts up... goosebumps just thinking about it.
The involvement and rounding of previous MCU films in the first half of the movie is intense and satisfying, as the group split up into different places in time to retrieve the stones. Lots of nods to different franchises, nice bit of exposition, and certain parts in particular are just happy, like seeing Tony talking to his father back in the 70's without him realising who he is. Wonderful Stuff.
We all knew there would be deaths, I felt that these were handled gracefully and tactfully, giving the best service for the characters and fans. At the same time, they were not predictable, which i felt was definitely important.
As a last word, anyone who's ever watched a marvel film or had interest in the comics needs to see this. There is a list published of the films you need to see beforehand to fully appreciate the time travel segments, but it's not absolutely necessary. It just helps you appreciate the thought that has gone into rounding off the biggest cinematic series in history, all the in jokes and nuances that the Russo's included to really make this serviceable to the fans.
The end of an era, and as a crescendo to the the symphony started by the rest of MCU, it's just plain beautiful.
Love you 3000, folks.
- Rob
Erika (17788 KP) Mar 1, 2021
Sarah (7798 KP) Mar 2, 2021