Search
Search results
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Mansion in Books
Jan 31, 2019
The Mansion is a tale stricken with ghosts of the past–but not the sort that haunt. Rather, in this novel by Ezekiel Boone, much of the elements that one might describe as horrific simply don’t exist. If you’re picking up The Mansion to find out what goes wrong in an automated house, I’d suggest Dean Koontz’s Demon Seed instead because this story crawls at a dreadfully slow pace.
The story centers around a rather messy love triangle. One girl, two guys, they both want her, and beyond that there’s little use for her character in the story. Much of the book’s plot consists of exposition, exposition, and even more exposition. You’ll learn all the faults and flaws of the characters, you’ll learn their childhood histories, you’ll hear their sob stories. It’s not until the final ten percent of the book that you’ll actually get a chance to see some action, and even then it’s still rather tame by horror standards. Amongst all this exposition, we learn of the wedge driven between Billy and Shawn, as well as a mysterious third person, Takata, whose whereabouts are unknown. Despite playing somewhat of a role in the book, he’s mostly an unnecessary character.
Speaking of characters, The Mansion has a rather small roster of them, and they’re all traumatized. With the exception of one, and she’s objectified. Billy has an addiction problem. Shawn is a pretentious nitwit that thinks the entire world revolves around him. Emily is simply there to fuel a fire between these two masculine characters who have devalued themselves to the point that now, years and years later on down the road, are still fighting over the same girl–and no one asks her what she wants at any point in the story. Poor Emily. There’s also the twins. They’re creepy. Really creepy. And no one seems to acknowledge that? Hello, realism?
Development. That’s an important part of a book, and The Mansion severely lacks it. There’s no development in the plot for 90% of the book. There’s absolutely no character development for Wendy, who is described as a black woman that looks like she walked out of a Victoria’s Secret magazine (or something along those lines). In fact, poor Wendy gets the short end of the stick all around. She’s the oddball out in this little teenaged drama hissy fit.
The Mansion simply falls horribly flat all around. The writing style was good, and it wasn’t so awful that I could’t complete reading the book, but it’s definitely not a title I’d recommend to a horror fan. A romance-thriller sort? Maybe. But not horror.
I received this book from NetGalley and the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
The story centers around a rather messy love triangle. One girl, two guys, they both want her, and beyond that there’s little use for her character in the story. Much of the book’s plot consists of exposition, exposition, and even more exposition. You’ll learn all the faults and flaws of the characters, you’ll learn their childhood histories, you’ll hear their sob stories. It’s not until the final ten percent of the book that you’ll actually get a chance to see some action, and even then it’s still rather tame by horror standards. Amongst all this exposition, we learn of the wedge driven between Billy and Shawn, as well as a mysterious third person, Takata, whose whereabouts are unknown. Despite playing somewhat of a role in the book, he’s mostly an unnecessary character.
Speaking of characters, The Mansion has a rather small roster of them, and they’re all traumatized. With the exception of one, and she’s objectified. Billy has an addiction problem. Shawn is a pretentious nitwit that thinks the entire world revolves around him. Emily is simply there to fuel a fire between these two masculine characters who have devalued themselves to the point that now, years and years later on down the road, are still fighting over the same girl–and no one asks her what she wants at any point in the story. Poor Emily. There’s also the twins. They’re creepy. Really creepy. And no one seems to acknowledge that? Hello, realism?
Development. That’s an important part of a book, and The Mansion severely lacks it. There’s no development in the plot for 90% of the book. There’s absolutely no character development for Wendy, who is described as a black woman that looks like she walked out of a Victoria’s Secret magazine (or something along those lines). In fact, poor Wendy gets the short end of the stick all around. She’s the oddball out in this little teenaged drama hissy fit.
The Mansion simply falls horribly flat all around. The writing style was good, and it wasn’t so awful that I could’t complete reading the book, but it’s definitely not a title I’d recommend to a horror fan. A romance-thriller sort? Maybe. But not horror.
I received this book from NetGalley and the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
Nicola Jane (6 KP) created a post
May 7, 2019 (Updated May 7, 2019)
BookwormMama14 (18 KP) rated Long Time Gone (The Cimarron Legacy, #2) in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Fast paced and filled with all the adventure, suspense, comedy, and romance that I have come to expect from Mary Connealy.
The Boden clan is a family that I am sad to say, I only JUST met in Long Time Gone. Even though I was able to pick up the gist of the story pretty quickly, I would suggest that you begin with book 1, No Way Up before diving into this one.
Angie and Justin are two peas in a pod. They really were made for each other and I just loved watching them bicker, tease, and fall in love. And they are both stubborn as mules. Justin, inexperienced when it comes to females, is adorable as he tries to sort out his feelings for Angie. Wanting to protect her, but trying not to come across as a dictator. Angie, still healing from the wounds of the past, is learning how to be her own woman, standing up for herself, defending herself. But we weren't made to do everything alone. That is why God sends us a partner to stand beside us, to fight with us. And above all we must never forget to lean on God for protection and strength. To trust that He is leading us down the right road. That no matter where life leads us, He will be by our side.
Mary's books have the great ability to make you laugh out loud, hold your breath in anticipation, shake your head in frustration, and curl your toes with the sweet romance.
Set in New Mexico Territory in 1880, we get to meet both outlaws and cowboys. Full of adventure and some hair raising escapades, Long Time Gone is sure to capture your attention, and the characters, your heart.
I received a complimentary copy of Long Time Gone from the publishers. I was not required to write a positive review. All opinions expressed are mine alone.
The Boden clan is a family that I am sad to say, I only JUST met in Long Time Gone. Even though I was able to pick up the gist of the story pretty quickly, I would suggest that you begin with book 1, No Way Up before diving into this one.
Angie and Justin are two peas in a pod. They really were made for each other and I just loved watching them bicker, tease, and fall in love. And they are both stubborn as mules. Justin, inexperienced when it comes to females, is adorable as he tries to sort out his feelings for Angie. Wanting to protect her, but trying not to come across as a dictator. Angie, still healing from the wounds of the past, is learning how to be her own woman, standing up for herself, defending herself. But we weren't made to do everything alone. That is why God sends us a partner to stand beside us, to fight with us. And above all we must never forget to lean on God for protection and strength. To trust that He is leading us down the right road. That no matter where life leads us, He will be by our side.
Mary's books have the great ability to make you laugh out loud, hold your breath in anticipation, shake your head in frustration, and curl your toes with the sweet romance.
Set in New Mexico Territory in 1880, we get to meet both outlaws and cowboys. Full of adventure and some hair raising escapades, Long Time Gone is sure to capture your attention, and the characters, your heart.
I received a complimentary copy of Long Time Gone from the publishers. I was not required to write a positive review. All opinions expressed are mine alone.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) in Movies
Mar 1, 2020
Growing up I wasn't a Sonic gamer but even I was majorly sceptical when they released the first trailer, that wasn't a look that worked for me.
Sonic is an excitable little fellow and he can't help but zip around his planet constantly against orders, when his speedy secret is uncovered he's sent to Earth and told to find a safe place to hide. He eventually finds a town to settle in and makes himself at home in the woods away from the people, but it's lonely watching the locals without being able to make friends with them.
When Sonic accidentally exposes his existence he enlists the help of the local sheriff so he might have a chance of evading a government scientist sent to track him down.
Simply said, this is an enjoyable film and it certainly went down well with the kids in the audience... but I'm not sure it would hold up to repeated viewings.
For all the moments I enjoyed there were moments that made my eyes roll. You remember in X-Men where Quicksilver runs fast and moves everything around in an action sequence? Well, you'll be wondering if Sonic happened to watch that one movie night. Sure it's cute, but I don't think it's cute enough to see it more than once in the same film.
Despite that, the effects themselves aren't bad, there are a few moments where real life and animation look a little off together but on the whole it works.
Sonic is an adorable hyperactive kid and he manages to experience a lot of things in the space of the film, they play out well and not at all like he's been stalking an entire town for years.
James Marsden plays Sheriff Tom. Watching him in any film after X-Men is extremely strange to me, and none of the roles seem quite right, potentially I just don't appreciate his comedic value. Tom's character is and a little average, it wasn't bad but at no point did I make a note about something that stood out.
And so to Jim Carrey... I enjoy Carrey as an actor but I'd like to seem him in more things that weren't "90s him". Every scene with Robotnik is classic Carrey, the character is that crazed scientist stereotype but it just never seemed to let up. It feels like they just brought him in to do what everyone expects him to do, and for a while I was okay with that... until that one point. As Robotnik searches for Sonic he waits for some analysis from the computer and he puts on his playlist. Then, for an inexplicably long time, he dances for absolutely no reason. It's not funny, it's just completely irrelevant and excessive. Rather than a subtle bit of nostalgia for the adults and some funny physical comedy for the kids every scene was taken just that step too far and turned into an awkward slapstick moment.
The story isn't bad, but perhaps it would have been slightly more interesting if Sonic had to rescue Tom from Robotnik or something similar. The middle of the film could have had some sort of purpose instead of a road trip... which, no matter how you look at it, was not necessary and could have been replaced with a minute of footage of Sonic running.
But... as I said at the beginning, this IS enjoyable, but once you start thinking about things it starts to unravel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/sonic-hedgehog-movie-review.html
Sonic is an excitable little fellow and he can't help but zip around his planet constantly against orders, when his speedy secret is uncovered he's sent to Earth and told to find a safe place to hide. He eventually finds a town to settle in and makes himself at home in the woods away from the people, but it's lonely watching the locals without being able to make friends with them.
When Sonic accidentally exposes his existence he enlists the help of the local sheriff so he might have a chance of evading a government scientist sent to track him down.
Simply said, this is an enjoyable film and it certainly went down well with the kids in the audience... but I'm not sure it would hold up to repeated viewings.
For all the moments I enjoyed there were moments that made my eyes roll. You remember in X-Men where Quicksilver runs fast and moves everything around in an action sequence? Well, you'll be wondering if Sonic happened to watch that one movie night. Sure it's cute, but I don't think it's cute enough to see it more than once in the same film.
Despite that, the effects themselves aren't bad, there are a few moments where real life and animation look a little off together but on the whole it works.
Sonic is an adorable hyperactive kid and he manages to experience a lot of things in the space of the film, they play out well and not at all like he's been stalking an entire town for years.
James Marsden plays Sheriff Tom. Watching him in any film after X-Men is extremely strange to me, and none of the roles seem quite right, potentially I just don't appreciate his comedic value. Tom's character is and a little average, it wasn't bad but at no point did I make a note about something that stood out.
And so to Jim Carrey... I enjoy Carrey as an actor but I'd like to seem him in more things that weren't "90s him". Every scene with Robotnik is classic Carrey, the character is that crazed scientist stereotype but it just never seemed to let up. It feels like they just brought him in to do what everyone expects him to do, and for a while I was okay with that... until that one point. As Robotnik searches for Sonic he waits for some analysis from the computer and he puts on his playlist. Then, for an inexplicably long time, he dances for absolutely no reason. It's not funny, it's just completely irrelevant and excessive. Rather than a subtle bit of nostalgia for the adults and some funny physical comedy for the kids every scene was taken just that step too far and turned into an awkward slapstick moment.
The story isn't bad, but perhaps it would have been slightly more interesting if Sonic had to rescue Tom from Robotnik or something similar. The middle of the film could have had some sort of purpose instead of a road trip... which, no matter how you look at it, was not necessary and could have been replaced with a minute of footage of Sonic running.
But... as I said at the beginning, this IS enjoyable, but once you start thinking about things it starts to unravel.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/sonic-hedgehog-movie-review.html
Ali A (82 KP) rated Deathless Divide in Books
Mar 3, 2020
Epic Feminist Western with Zombies
After the fall of Kansas survivalist town Summerland, Jane McKeene, Katherine Deveraux, and their group set off to what they hope is a better opportunity at life. But of course, life is never easy, especially while surviving in 1880's America with the restless dead. On the road to a protected village called Nicodermus, the group suffers a loss. Then, what appears at first to be a safe haven, Nicodermus becomes filled with lies and mystery.
The group becomes separated and Jane soon finds herself on a path filled with darkness and blood while Katherine does everything she can to continue on. Katherine never expected to be friends with Jane McKeene, but after everything she's been through, she knows friends are hard to come by; her best friend, Jane, needs her now more than ever. When the duo reach a critical point, Katherine is the one who must keep hope alive so they can survive.
I enjoyed this book so much. My heart broke for Jane and all the hardship she had to go through, but I loved the badass fighter she became. The story arc she has through this novel kept me intrigued to see it to the end. Katherine however, really stole the show for me. Just having her be there as an ace character doing her thing and surviving - all while wearing a corset - is amazing. Also her love for stubborn and sometimes unflinching Jane is heartwarming; she's loyal to Jane no matter what, even when Jane tries to push her away. I respected Jane but I admired Katherine. Both girls are such badass characters for me and I love them both so much.
I'll try not to mention anything major about the story line, but it's pretty good to say the book splits between "Nicodermus" and "After Nicodermus." "After Nicodermus" leads in directions I would have never guessed and it had me turning page after page. It's intense. New, interesting characters are also introduced, many of whom were just as interesting as Jane and Katherine (I would have loved to see more of Carolina and Katherine's friendship).
Even with the back and forth between each chapter of Jane and Katherine's POVs in Deathless Divide, it has, just like Dread Nation, such an incredible, strong narrative. The way that Justina Ireland writes blows me away. Both characters give the reader so much to connect and hold onto.
I absolutely loved the ending of this book as well. I was so concerned in the last 75 pages or so that it wouldn't end well - not because I didn't want another one (at this point, I will read anything Justina Ireland writes I just love her writing so much), but because I was worried I was going to have to wait another two years before I found out after being left with a cliff hanger. Ireland was able to write the end perfectly that I was happy with the wrap-up of Jane's story.
Deathless Divide is a book I will now always recommend (of course after one reads Dread Nation). It has strong, independent, black, female, queer characters. It addresses issues of racism, sexism, mental health, and the meaning of surviving. The story is an easy and fast-paced read with characters that, as a reader, one can fall in love with.
The group becomes separated and Jane soon finds herself on a path filled with darkness and blood while Katherine does everything she can to continue on. Katherine never expected to be friends with Jane McKeene, but after everything she's been through, she knows friends are hard to come by; her best friend, Jane, needs her now more than ever. When the duo reach a critical point, Katherine is the one who must keep hope alive so they can survive.
I enjoyed this book so much. My heart broke for Jane and all the hardship she had to go through, but I loved the badass fighter she became. The story arc she has through this novel kept me intrigued to see it to the end. Katherine however, really stole the show for me. Just having her be there as an ace character doing her thing and surviving - all while wearing a corset - is amazing. Also her love for stubborn and sometimes unflinching Jane is heartwarming; she's loyal to Jane no matter what, even when Jane tries to push her away. I respected Jane but I admired Katherine. Both girls are such badass characters for me and I love them both so much.
I'll try not to mention anything major about the story line, but it's pretty good to say the book splits between "Nicodermus" and "After Nicodermus." "After Nicodermus" leads in directions I would have never guessed and it had me turning page after page. It's intense. New, interesting characters are also introduced, many of whom were just as interesting as Jane and Katherine (I would have loved to see more of Carolina and Katherine's friendship).
Even with the back and forth between each chapter of Jane and Katherine's POVs in Deathless Divide, it has, just like Dread Nation, such an incredible, strong narrative. The way that Justina Ireland writes blows me away. Both characters give the reader so much to connect and hold onto.
I absolutely loved the ending of this book as well. I was so concerned in the last 75 pages or so that it wouldn't end well - not because I didn't want another one (at this point, I will read anything Justina Ireland writes I just love her writing so much), but because I was worried I was going to have to wait another two years before I found out after being left with a cliff hanger. Ireland was able to write the end perfectly that I was happy with the wrap-up of Jane's story.
Deathless Divide is a book I will now always recommend (of course after one reads Dread Nation). It has strong, independent, black, female, queer characters. It addresses issues of racism, sexism, mental health, and the meaning of surviving. The story is an easy and fast-paced read with characters that, as a reader, one can fall in love with.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Scary Movie 4 (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Anna Faris returns as Cindy Campbell in the fourth installment of the popular “Scary Movie” franchise and your favorite horror films will never be the same.
Continuing the tradition of lampooning the horror genre that was established in the three previous segments, Scary Movie 4 takes aim at SAW, War of the Worlds, The Grudge and The Village while countless other pop culture shows and events are lambasted.
The film is pretty much a collection of scenes that are designed to mimic other films for comedic results so as such, only a very minimal plot is in place. In this case, the story follows War of the Worlds where a down and out father named Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko), must stay one step ahead of an alien invasion and protect his two estranged children from the devastation unleashed by the invaders.
Without the concerns of a plot to follow, the movie jumps from one locale to another in order to parody the various genre films. One segment has Cindy escaping the aliens by leaving her “Grudge” inspired house to reunite with her friend Brenda (Regina Hall), only to be thrust into an extended parody of The Village while Tom and company continue their parody of War of the Worlds”. While this may seem hectic to some, the film pulls it off very well as there are other subplots to follow such as Leslie Nielsen’s hilarious take as the President who is more concerned over the outcome of a children’s book then the fact that aliens are destroying the country.
Once again directed by David Zucker who took over the franchise after Scary Movie 2, the film uses the same style that made Zucker’s Airplane and Naked Gun series such box office favorites. Jokes ranging from the crude to the absurd fly at record pace inundating the audience with a torrent of jokes. As before, some jokes are truly inspired such as the Shaq and Dr. Phil parody of SAW and others take the crude road such as a sponge bath from hell and a Viagra overdose. While there is nothing that is truly fresh or original to the film, some of the jokes work very well, and make up for the jokes that bomb.
This is not the type of film where there is anything you can say about acting, plot, character development, and chemistry as those aspects are all non-existent as the focus is on parody. In that regard Scary Movie 4 works as despite the fact that much of the film is silly and dumb, it is by and large funny. If you do not mind wading through the jokes that fail to get to the ones that work, you will be rewarded as there are some very good bits in the film.
If you are a fan of the series then you know what you are in for and are likely to get some laughs, but if you are new to the franchise, then you might want to wait for the DVD release.
Continuing the tradition of lampooning the horror genre that was established in the three previous segments, Scary Movie 4 takes aim at SAW, War of the Worlds, The Grudge and The Village while countless other pop culture shows and events are lambasted.
The film is pretty much a collection of scenes that are designed to mimic other films for comedic results so as such, only a very minimal plot is in place. In this case, the story follows War of the Worlds where a down and out father named Tom Ryan (Craig Bierko), must stay one step ahead of an alien invasion and protect his two estranged children from the devastation unleashed by the invaders.
Without the concerns of a plot to follow, the movie jumps from one locale to another in order to parody the various genre films. One segment has Cindy escaping the aliens by leaving her “Grudge” inspired house to reunite with her friend Brenda (Regina Hall), only to be thrust into an extended parody of The Village while Tom and company continue their parody of War of the Worlds”. While this may seem hectic to some, the film pulls it off very well as there are other subplots to follow such as Leslie Nielsen’s hilarious take as the President who is more concerned over the outcome of a children’s book then the fact that aliens are destroying the country.
Once again directed by David Zucker who took over the franchise after Scary Movie 2, the film uses the same style that made Zucker’s Airplane and Naked Gun series such box office favorites. Jokes ranging from the crude to the absurd fly at record pace inundating the audience with a torrent of jokes. As before, some jokes are truly inspired such as the Shaq and Dr. Phil parody of SAW and others take the crude road such as a sponge bath from hell and a Viagra overdose. While there is nothing that is truly fresh or original to the film, some of the jokes work very well, and make up for the jokes that bomb.
This is not the type of film where there is anything you can say about acting, plot, character development, and chemistry as those aspects are all non-existent as the focus is on parody. In that regard Scary Movie 4 works as despite the fact that much of the film is silly and dumb, it is by and large funny. If you do not mind wading through the jokes that fail to get to the ones that work, you will be rewarded as there are some very good bits in the film.
If you are a fan of the series then you know what you are in for and are likely to get some laughs, but if you are new to the franchise, then you might want to wait for the DVD release.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Light of My Life (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
It is difficult to talk about Casey Affleck in a positive light as a movie-maker without mentioning the heightened media storm that surrounded him in 2017, at the time of #metoo and his own moment of personal glory in winning the Best Actor Oscar for his excellent performance in Manchester By the Sea. The Oscar was deserved, as was the criticism. The latter affecting the sweetness of the former entirely, and perhaps explaining why a recent Academy Award winner would be so quiet for the next 3 years.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
Joaquin's Performance Elevates This Film
Give Joaquin Phoenix the Oscar right now. His bravura performance as the titular character in JOKER is one for the ages. He is on the screen in every scene of this film and captivates and repulses you at the same time. This performance raises this film to another level.
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mitchells vs The Machines (2021) in Movies
May 16, 2021
Brilliantly original animation (1 more)
Fantastic laugh-out-loud gags throughout, many with a movie nerd bias
Dog-Pig-Dog-Pig-Loaf of Bread… KERBOOM!
Katie Mitchell (voiced by Abbi Jacobson) dreams of being a great film director (joining her icons on her version of Mount Rushmore!). She's about to travel to a west-coast film college when her dad Rick (Danny Mcbride) decides to cancel her air ticket and try to re-engage with her through one last epic road trip. Together with wife Linda (Maya Rudolph), dinosaur-mad son Aaron (director Michael Rianda) and cross-eyed pug Monchi (Doug the Pug!) they set off on their journey.
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
But the world is set to change forever, as sentient operating system PAL (Olivia Colman) and her army of robots take over the world and prepare to launch human-kind into deep dark space. The Mitchell's, as the world's unlikeliest Avengers, appear to be the only ones available to prevent the evil plan!
Positives:
- In my review of the lamentable "Thunder Force", I commented that it failed my "six laughs test" for a comedy. I only laughed 3 times in the whole film. In contrast, this movie hammered home guffaw-generating lines and scenes about six times a minute! It's hilarious. It's one of those films (like the best Pixar ones) with so much hidden detail buried in every shot. You could watch it a dozen times and still find new hidden gags.
- This is a movie that is the perfect family film. A film that kids will love for the knockabout comedy and a film that adults will also fall in love with. This comes from three different angles:
-- Excellent character development of the whole family. Katie feels like a fully rounded stroppy teen: she seems to be struggling with her identity (lesbian? - "It took me a while to figure myself out"); and she is struggling towards her personal goals despite the well-intentioned but destructive doubts that her rough-and-ready father keeps sowing. This feels like a journey that the family is on towards enlightenment, before it's too late.
-- This is also a film with considerable emotional heft. It channels at times some of the best elements of the Toy Story films (most notably "Toy Story 3" with Andy's departure for college). (Any parents who have never experienced that joyous yet dreadful day when you drive your chicks to university or college for the first time: brace yourselves!)
-- It's a dream for film fans. Like "Ready Player One", it's populated with lots of fun movie easter-eggs scattered throughout. Katie's 'Mount Rushmore' by the way has Greta Gerwig, Céline Sciamma (from "Portrait of a Lady on Fire"), Lynne Ramsey and Hal Ashby as her directorial inspirations.
- And finally, it's a film for adults appreciative of some truly great satirical one-liners, including some razor-sharp zingers at 'big tech'. For example:
"It's almost like stealing people's data and giving it to a hyper-intelligent AI as part of an unregulated tech monopoly was a bad thing"
Negatives:
- My only minor criticism - and its a debatable one - might be the running time of 113 minutes. It might be a little too long for younger kids' attention spans. A 90 minute, more condensed, movie might have ticked the 'perfection' box.
Summary Thoughts: I don't normally "go" for animated films much. But this one is a different breed. An instant classic. It knocks you round the chops and forces your respect by being like no animated feature you've seen before. Witty, irreverent, gloriously entertaining it's a no-brainer that this gets 5-stars from me.
I said in my review of "Nomadland" that although that wasn't a 5* film for me, I could see why its brave and different slant at film-making earned it the Best Film Oscar. Well, almost regardless of what epically beautiful production Pixar might bring out before the end of the year, if the Academy doesn't vote this Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscars, then some sort of crime might have been committed.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/05/16/the-mitchells-vs-the-machines-dog-pig-dog-pig-loaf-of-bread-kerboom/. Thanks.)
