Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
That fateful night in Haddonfield, Laurie Strode shot and killed Michael Myers or so she thought. As the ambulance that pulled what was thought to be the corpse of the world's most notorious serial killer, Michael Myers made sure everyone knew he was still alive the best way he could; by slaughtering whoever got in his way. Now, two years later, Laurie lives with Sheriff Brackett and his daughter Annie. Laurie struggles with hallucinations and panic attacks while believing the therapy she's receiving is only making her worse. As Laurie struggles with her newfound issues, Michael tries to reunite his family. Michael has visions of his mother with a white horse accompanied by his younger self. Michael is returning to Haddonfield to finish the job.
This film has to set the record for dream sequences, which makes you wonder if the entire film is nothing more than a dream. I wasn't exactly a big fan of the remake from 2007 and expectations for this film were incredibly low, nobody can really be prepared for how terrible this film really is. Since there's so much wrong with this film, we'll try and start with what was actually was enjoyable.
Brad Dourif as Sheriff Brackett is really the highlight of the film as far as acting goes. While that probably isn't saying much and his role isn't as big as you may expect, he does a good job with the screen time he gets. His character is intense right from the start, but as things take a turn for the worse for his character his downward spiral is the most enthralling aspect of the film. A few of the deaths were also really satisfying. Mainly Buddy the Secuirty Guard. There's a night scene where an officer is out on Sheriff Brackett's lawn and we're looking at the silhouette of a tree while the officer searches the premises. Before you know it, we see Michael emerge from that tree silhouette and kill the officer.
Everything else in the film was just horrendous. The flaws are almost so overwhelming that it's nearly impossible to know where to begin. The whole white horse thing is ridiculous. So if Deborah Myers tells young Michael that he can think of her whenever he looks at the white horse figurine she gave him, wouldn't that make her a horse by default? The inconsistencies in the film are incredibly glaring, as well. Laurie and Annie's injuries from the previous film seem more severe at the start of this one, Laurie being able to put weight on an injured leg by walking on it but it causing her extreme pain when she's lifted from a stretcher to a bed at the hospital, Michael chopping off a guy's head with a shard of glass, etc. The "Nights in White Satin" thing was literally beaten into your skull by the time the film ended. If you sit through the film, it's like Rob is sitting next to you each time the song comes on nudging you with his elbow going, "Eh? Do you get it? You get it?"
Michael was way too vocal for my liking. Heavy breathing is one thing, but when we're hearing him grunt loudly every time he stabs somebody then it takes a lot of it. When he actually talked at the end of the film, I was done. He also seemed to spend more time stabbing women than men in the film. Guys get their head chopped off or an axe to the back while women get stabbed a dozen times or have their face smashed against a mirror nine times. The choreography didn't seem as good as the remake either. There's a scene where water gets on the camera and it's on there the entire scene. It's interesting at first, but after a few minutes you just want someone to get a towel to wipe it down.
As powerful as Michael seems to be, it at least made a bit more sense in the original film by John Carpenter. Michael was pure evil. That was the explanation, so him not being able to die at least sort of made sense. Now that he's been given this white trash upbringing in the remake, his super strength and inability to die just seems even more farfetched than it originally did. So when Michael is busting through walls and lifting cars with his bare hands all Incredible Hulk style in this film, it's laughable. Not to mention what happened to the Dr. Loomis character. There are just way too many things wrong with this sequel to list here.
Rob Zombie has certainly made Halloween his own with Halloween II. It's just a shame that it's really not worth watching seriously. Let's put it this way, the highlight of the film is Weird Al's cameo. After five films of dealing with white trash families, it's time for Zombie to move on to something different. It's safe to say he's bled that idea bone dry. I wouldn't seriously recommend this film to anyone, but if you're looking for a film to watch with some friends to laugh at and make fun of while it's going then this is the perfect film.
This film has to set the record for dream sequences, which makes you wonder if the entire film is nothing more than a dream. I wasn't exactly a big fan of the remake from 2007 and expectations for this film were incredibly low, nobody can really be prepared for how terrible this film really is. Since there's so much wrong with this film, we'll try and start with what was actually was enjoyable.
Brad Dourif as Sheriff Brackett is really the highlight of the film as far as acting goes. While that probably isn't saying much and his role isn't as big as you may expect, he does a good job with the screen time he gets. His character is intense right from the start, but as things take a turn for the worse for his character his downward spiral is the most enthralling aspect of the film. A few of the deaths were also really satisfying. Mainly Buddy the Secuirty Guard. There's a night scene where an officer is out on Sheriff Brackett's lawn and we're looking at the silhouette of a tree while the officer searches the premises. Before you know it, we see Michael emerge from that tree silhouette and kill the officer.
Everything else in the film was just horrendous. The flaws are almost so overwhelming that it's nearly impossible to know where to begin. The whole white horse thing is ridiculous. So if Deborah Myers tells young Michael that he can think of her whenever he looks at the white horse figurine she gave him, wouldn't that make her a horse by default? The inconsistencies in the film are incredibly glaring, as well. Laurie and Annie's injuries from the previous film seem more severe at the start of this one, Laurie being able to put weight on an injured leg by walking on it but it causing her extreme pain when she's lifted from a stretcher to a bed at the hospital, Michael chopping off a guy's head with a shard of glass, etc. The "Nights in White Satin" thing was literally beaten into your skull by the time the film ended. If you sit through the film, it's like Rob is sitting next to you each time the song comes on nudging you with his elbow going, "Eh? Do you get it? You get it?"
Michael was way too vocal for my liking. Heavy breathing is one thing, but when we're hearing him grunt loudly every time he stabs somebody then it takes a lot of it. When he actually talked at the end of the film, I was done. He also seemed to spend more time stabbing women than men in the film. Guys get their head chopped off or an axe to the back while women get stabbed a dozen times or have their face smashed against a mirror nine times. The choreography didn't seem as good as the remake either. There's a scene where water gets on the camera and it's on there the entire scene. It's interesting at first, but after a few minutes you just want someone to get a towel to wipe it down.
As powerful as Michael seems to be, it at least made a bit more sense in the original film by John Carpenter. Michael was pure evil. That was the explanation, so him not being able to die at least sort of made sense. Now that he's been given this white trash upbringing in the remake, his super strength and inability to die just seems even more farfetched than it originally did. So when Michael is busting through walls and lifting cars with his bare hands all Incredible Hulk style in this film, it's laughable. Not to mention what happened to the Dr. Loomis character. There are just way too many things wrong with this sequel to list here.
Rob Zombie has certainly made Halloween his own with Halloween II. It's just a shame that it's really not worth watching seriously. Let's put it this way, the highlight of the film is Weird Al's cameo. After five films of dealing with white trash families, it's time for Zombie to move on to something different. It's safe to say he's bled that idea bone dry. I wouldn't seriously recommend this film to anyone, but if you're looking for a film to watch with some friends to laugh at and make fun of while it's going then this is the perfect film.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Sep 24, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
When their mobster husbands are all sent to prison, three women decide that the only way they can survive is to take over their criminal enterprise’s, the quest is can their friendship last.
The Kitchen is based on comics released by DC Vertigo and is set in ‘Hell’s Kitchen’, New York during the 1970’s and focus’ on the lives of the wives of an Irish/American mob and their struggle to maintain a basic life style once their husbands have been arrested. Each of the women have a different type of relationship with their husbands; Kathy is in a seemingly normal, loving relationship, Claire is in an abusive relationship and Ruby is in a mixed marriage which is looked down on by alto for the other characters. One of the threads of the film is how each woman reacts to their husbands being away and what will happen when they return.
First off, this is not a comedy, I have seen some reviews where people seem to have been expecting a few laughs, mainly because of the casting of Melissa McCarthy and Tiffany Haddish. The Kitchen has violence, abuse, attempted rape, bad language, lots of guns, prostitutes and shootings but no humour. I think there was only one time anyone laughed (in the cinema audience) and that was when the characters were being shown how to dispose of a dead body.
I have to say that this is a good, well written female lead film, the premise is not forced and there is a reason the characters are female and in a situation that women would not normally be in, especially for the time it is set. Even though the characters are slightly stereotyped (The beaten woman trying to get stronger, the loving wife trying to keep things together) they are not turned into a joke or overly exaggerated and is a big step up from the Ghostbuster’s remake which also had McCarthy as part of an all-female team. Like Ghostbusters there is also a male character who helps the team, Gabriel, but the Kitchen avoids turning him into a joke unlike Chris Hemsworth in ghostbusters.
It could be said that the way the male characters are portrayed is bad, most of them are either thugs, stupid or crazy but this not due to any kind of feminism agenda but is a slightly stereotyped view of how a segment of people were seen, most of the people they deal with are the Irish/American mobsters. This is also shown by the Italians; they are not portrayed in the same way.
I do get the feeling that The Kitchen will be remembered more for scenes and its characters than for the overall movie as there are some bits that seem to drag but, overall it is a film worth watching.
The Kitchen is based on comics released by DC Vertigo and is set in ‘Hell’s Kitchen’, New York during the 1970’s and focus’ on the lives of the wives of an Irish/American mob and their struggle to maintain a basic life style once their husbands have been arrested. Each of the women have a different type of relationship with their husbands; Kathy is in a seemingly normal, loving relationship, Claire is in an abusive relationship and Ruby is in a mixed marriage which is looked down on by alto for the other characters. One of the threads of the film is how each woman reacts to their husbands being away and what will happen when they return.
First off, this is not a comedy, I have seen some reviews where people seem to have been expecting a few laughs, mainly because of the casting of Melissa McCarthy and Tiffany Haddish. The Kitchen has violence, abuse, attempted rape, bad language, lots of guns, prostitutes and shootings but no humour. I think there was only one time anyone laughed (in the cinema audience) and that was when the characters were being shown how to dispose of a dead body.
I have to say that this is a good, well written female lead film, the premise is not forced and there is a reason the characters are female and in a situation that women would not normally be in, especially for the time it is set. Even though the characters are slightly stereotyped (The beaten woman trying to get stronger, the loving wife trying to keep things together) they are not turned into a joke or overly exaggerated and is a big step up from the Ghostbuster’s remake which also had McCarthy as part of an all-female team. Like Ghostbusters there is also a male character who helps the team, Gabriel, but the Kitchen avoids turning him into a joke unlike Chris Hemsworth in ghostbusters.
It could be said that the way the male characters are portrayed is bad, most of them are either thugs, stupid or crazy but this not due to any kind of feminism agenda but is a slightly stereotyped view of how a segment of people were seen, most of the people they deal with are the Irish/American mobsters. This is also shown by the Italians; they are not portrayed in the same way.
I do get the feeling that The Kitchen will be remembered more for scenes and its characters than for the overall movie as there are some bits that seem to drag but, overall it is a film worth watching.
Fred (860 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jul 10, 2018
The acting is top notch (2 more)
Lots of action
Very loyal to the game series
The Story of Lara Croft is an interesting one
Watched this last night. As usual, I try not to see any reviews until I see it, so I'm not swayed by other's opinions. And so, not knowing if the movie was liked or disliked, I was able to watch it & make my own opinion.
I am a fan of the game series & love the new entries. I'm very glad they decided to follow the new games for this film & I found Lara's "origin" to be real interesting. I was not a fan of the Angelina Jolie movies. I found her too snooty & arrogant to like the character. But Alicia Vikander plays the characters perfectly. She plays a young Lara, who's tough, but has some vulnerability to her. She's an underdog we can root for, but she can hold her own too. A perfect balance.
Daniel Wu & Dominic West play their parts well. Although I would have liked to have seen Wu pull off some martial arts moves, like his character on "Into the Badlands", but I'm also glad they didn't fall for the stereotypical Asian.
But. a movie is only as good as it's main villain. And this movie has a great one. Played by Walton Goggins, who doesn't get the credit he deserves. This guy is great. He can make you love him & he can make you hate him too. I've never seen him in a bad role.
There's really not much to say about the story, as it's practically a live-action remake of the last 2 video games stories mashed together. You know what to expect, lots of action, lots of raiding of tombs. I kind of wish there would have been more puzzle solving in it. Some of the puzzles were solved without even showing them. Lara just solves them. I kind of wish I could have figured them out. But I guess I'm just used to playing the game & doing everything myself.
Anyway, the bottom line, it's a fun film, well worth watching.
I am a fan of the game series & love the new entries. I'm very glad they decided to follow the new games for this film & I found Lara's "origin" to be real interesting. I was not a fan of the Angelina Jolie movies. I found her too snooty & arrogant to like the character. But Alicia Vikander plays the characters perfectly. She plays a young Lara, who's tough, but has some vulnerability to her. She's an underdog we can root for, but she can hold her own too. A perfect balance.
Daniel Wu & Dominic West play their parts well. Although I would have liked to have seen Wu pull off some martial arts moves, like his character on "Into the Badlands", but I'm also glad they didn't fall for the stereotypical Asian.
But. a movie is only as good as it's main villain. And this movie has a great one. Played by Walton Goggins, who doesn't get the credit he deserves. This guy is great. He can make you love him & he can make you hate him too. I've never seen him in a bad role.
There's really not much to say about the story, as it's practically a live-action remake of the last 2 video games stories mashed together. You know what to expect, lots of action, lots of raiding of tombs. I kind of wish there would have been more puzzle solving in it. Some of the puzzles were solved without even showing them. Lara just solves them. I kind of wish I could have figured them out. But I guess I'm just used to playing the game & doing everything myself.
Anyway, the bottom line, it's a fun film, well worth watching.
METAL SLUG X
Games and Entertainment
App
The masterpiece of 2D action-shooting, "METAL SLUG X", lands on iPhone/iPod touch! Foil General...
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 31, 2019
Lacking in heart
The Lion King is one of my all time favourite Disney films, so I approached this 'live action' remake with a lot of trepidation, and I'm afraid to say I was right to be worried.
Visually it looks stunning, which shouldn't really be a surprise as it has been brought to us by the same guys that did The Jungle Book. However I'm afraid the visuals are pretty much all this film has going for it. This film is virtually a carbon copy of the original animation but with all of the heart, soul and humour taken out of it. The problem with these Disney live action remakes is they're unnecessary and stuck in a difficult position - differ too much from the original and people hate it, but sticking too close to the original and it begs the question as to why not just watch the original? It's more difficult for The Lion King as it's gone from being cartoon animation to CGI animation and apart from looking more natural, that's the only real difference.
They've lost virtually all of the magic that made the original great in the first place. The humour either falls flat due to the poor execution, or has been removed and replaced with something much less witty and funny. I mean, where was dress in drag & do the hula?! I dont think the voice cast helps. Other than Chiwetel Ejiofor and of course James Earl Jones, the rest of the voice cast just seemed ridiculously out of place and ill fitting with the film. I cringed every time I heard Zazu as Jon Oliver is definitely no Rowan Atkinson! And dont even get me started on Beyonce. We really didnt need her horrific versions of songs thrown in too. Although the rest of the songs did at least make the rest of the film more bearable.
Altogether despite the stunning CGI, this is a very poor copy of the original and definitely one I wont be watching again - just stick to the original.
Visually it looks stunning, which shouldn't really be a surprise as it has been brought to us by the same guys that did The Jungle Book. However I'm afraid the visuals are pretty much all this film has going for it. This film is virtually a carbon copy of the original animation but with all of the heart, soul and humour taken out of it. The problem with these Disney live action remakes is they're unnecessary and stuck in a difficult position - differ too much from the original and people hate it, but sticking too close to the original and it begs the question as to why not just watch the original? It's more difficult for The Lion King as it's gone from being cartoon animation to CGI animation and apart from looking more natural, that's the only real difference.
They've lost virtually all of the magic that made the original great in the first place. The humour either falls flat due to the poor execution, or has been removed and replaced with something much less witty and funny. I mean, where was dress in drag & do the hula?! I dont think the voice cast helps. Other than Chiwetel Ejiofor and of course James Earl Jones, the rest of the voice cast just seemed ridiculously out of place and ill fitting with the film. I cringed every time I heard Zazu as Jon Oliver is definitely no Rowan Atkinson! And dont even get me started on Beyonce. We really didnt need her horrific versions of songs thrown in too. Although the rest of the songs did at least make the rest of the film more bearable.
Altogether despite the stunning CGI, this is a very poor copy of the original and definitely one I wont be watching again - just stick to the original.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Magnificent Seven (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Hornery Exit.
As a big fan of the original – a staple of many Bank Holiday afternoons in my youth – I was prepared to be sniffy about this remake and came to the film on my high-horse (I left that tied to the rail outside the cinema by the way). But I was surprised to have my expectations reset.
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Churchill (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We will bore them on the beaches”.
“Churchill” tells the story of the great leader’s extreme opposition to “Operation Overlord”, the Eisenhower-led invasion of Normandy in 1944 that ultimately led – more by luck that judgement perhaps – to the fall of the Third Reich in the following year.
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
The School : White Day
Games
App
● Game Introduction ● The legendary classic horror game returns with full 3D graphics. The...
Andrew Kennedy (199 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Aug 31, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
A new Alien film is something I look forward too. They promised we would find out about xeno origins and see new strains. Plus, Ridley was directing, what could go wrong?
You could end up making a film that feels like a remake of the first film.
The set up to get us to the planet, crew interaction and things going badly wrong on the planet feels so familiar.
So the positives, Michael Fassbender is outstanding in his performance as Walter/David. He seriously acts rings round anybody else.
The score is fabulous and rich.
Danny McBride is also noteworthy for his performance.
Katherine Waterston is likeable but feels like trying to be Ripley but not.
Negatives the Xenos get very little screen time. I think were 45 mins+ in before we see one.
Billy Crudup is very unlikeable and his death barely made me care.
The origin story ending up been David created the xenos. I don't know this stuck in my craw a bit. I just feel vengeful synthetic created the ultimate organism is a bit of a let down.
After, the first film Scott said he expected other sequels to ask "where did the xeno come from?" question.
The problem is that question is difficult to give a satisfactory answer too. Like most fandom people have there own theories and in truth does it matter?
Covenant has big ideas, it just doesn't execute them all properly.
You could end up making a film that feels like a remake of the first film.
The set up to get us to the planet, crew interaction and things going badly wrong on the planet feels so familiar.
So the positives, Michael Fassbender is outstanding in his performance as Walter/David. He seriously acts rings round anybody else.
The score is fabulous and rich.
Danny McBride is also noteworthy for his performance.
Katherine Waterston is likeable but feels like trying to be Ripley but not.
Negatives the Xenos get very little screen time. I think were 45 mins+ in before we see one.
Billy Crudup is very unlikeable and his death barely made me care.
The origin story ending up been David created the xenos. I don't know this stuck in my craw a bit. I just feel vengeful synthetic created the ultimate organism is a bit of a let down.
After, the first film Scott said he expected other sequels to ask "where did the xeno come from?" question.
The problem is that question is difficult to give a satisfactory answer too. Like most fandom people have there own theories and in truth does it matter?
Covenant has big ideas, it just doesn't execute them all properly.
FINAL FANTASY III
Games and Entertainment
App
Final Fantasy III -- now on iPhone and iPod touch! First released in 1990, Final Fantasy III was...