Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
Sep 25, 2021
One of the many long time coming films from before the pandemonium finally made its way to our screens. The sequel to the film that made us uncomfortable to eat snacks while we were at the cinema... A Quiet Place Part II came out to an excited crowd going back to the movies.
The Abbots have survived the attack on their family and found a way to get the upper hand in the fight against the monsters. They need to move on, beyond the boundaries they're set up for themselves. But what is out there blocking their way? Friend or foe? There's no way of knowing.
I was sceptical about a second film, there was a perfectly good intriguing ending to the first, and sequels aren't always the follow-ups we hope for. Would there be enough to stretch out into a decent story?
Emily Blunt was Emily Blunt. The expected powerful performance, but it was nice to see her taking a slight back seat to allow other characters to take the lead... whether I enjoyed that or not.
The biggest change on that front was giving Regan a bigger piece of the action, and the chance to show the leadership that is now missing since the death of her father. And we get an interesting pairing with her and Cillian Murphy, there's a bond made that leads them to learn about each other and it was nice, while a little sad, to see her with a new father figure in her life for a while.
Murphy's character of Emmett seems far more at home with his life as a "lone survivor" than he did as a family man. He's bunkered down outside their radius and got himself a nice little set up... but... there's one very large point that is not addressed during the films, and it's quick frankly too odd (and slightly sinister) for them to have avoided. Apart from that, Emmett does unfold nicely through the film, and he really adjusts well to being reconnected with the Abbotts.
As much as I like Noah Jupe, I found Marcus to be entirely too frustrating in this film. I don't like to wish ill upon people, but, he deserved to be eaten by a monster, or at least lightly maimed. Reckless and idiotic, he quite frankly didn't deserve any kind of redemption.
Even more so than the first, this film gave me heavy Lost vibes. If you broke some of the scenes down into their vaguest detail and asked people to guess what you were talking about, I'd certainly forgive people for guessing wrong. But yet again it's a suspenseful offering, and I found it hilarious when I fell for the jump scares. Coming out to an almost instant announcement of a third film left me wondering though. What could it do from here? It really felt like it had come to a natural ending.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-quiet-place-part-ii-movie-review.html
The Abbots have survived the attack on their family and found a way to get the upper hand in the fight against the monsters. They need to move on, beyond the boundaries they're set up for themselves. But what is out there blocking their way? Friend or foe? There's no way of knowing.
I was sceptical about a second film, there was a perfectly good intriguing ending to the first, and sequels aren't always the follow-ups we hope for. Would there be enough to stretch out into a decent story?
Emily Blunt was Emily Blunt. The expected powerful performance, but it was nice to see her taking a slight back seat to allow other characters to take the lead... whether I enjoyed that or not.
The biggest change on that front was giving Regan a bigger piece of the action, and the chance to show the leadership that is now missing since the death of her father. And we get an interesting pairing with her and Cillian Murphy, there's a bond made that leads them to learn about each other and it was nice, while a little sad, to see her with a new father figure in her life for a while.
Murphy's character of Emmett seems far more at home with his life as a "lone survivor" than he did as a family man. He's bunkered down outside their radius and got himself a nice little set up... but... there's one very large point that is not addressed during the films, and it's quick frankly too odd (and slightly sinister) for them to have avoided. Apart from that, Emmett does unfold nicely through the film, and he really adjusts well to being reconnected with the Abbotts.
As much as I like Noah Jupe, I found Marcus to be entirely too frustrating in this film. I don't like to wish ill upon people, but, he deserved to be eaten by a monster, or at least lightly maimed. Reckless and idiotic, he quite frankly didn't deserve any kind of redemption.
Even more so than the first, this film gave me heavy Lost vibes. If you broke some of the scenes down into their vaguest detail and asked people to guess what you were talking about, I'd certainly forgive people for guessing wrong. But yet again it's a suspenseful offering, and I found it hilarious when I fell for the jump scares. Coming out to an almost instant announcement of a third film left me wondering though. What could it do from here? It really felt like it had come to a natural ending.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-quiet-place-part-ii-movie-review.html
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in Books
May 16, 2018
Several years ago, I watched The Haunting (1999). It was not an intentional watching of the movie and I actually forgot that I had watched it shortly after. Now and then, I would recall a scene and try to remember where it was from without much luck. At that time, I was not aware that it was an adaptation of Shirley Jackson's novel, The Haunting of Hill House. In fact, it wasn't until more recently that I returned to my long forgotten passion for the written word. In a way, I'm a bit glad that I read the book - or in this case, listened to it.
One of the largest determining factors for me when I'm listening to an audio book is the quality of the narration, and in this case I highly suggest the version narrated by David Warner over Bernadette Dunne. Warner's voice is far gentler on the ears and his heavy English lends an utterly unique feeling to the story. I only listened to a sample of Dunne's version and found it very painful on my ears. Warner's reading is published by Phoenix, whereas Dunne's is from Blackstone Audio. Considering that I use audiobooks in order to help me relax along the hour long commute to and from work, the quality of the recording is vital to whether or not I am capable of stomaching the book (and for this reason, I nearly dropped House).
The Haunting of Hill House was published in 1959 by Viking, six years before Shirley Jackson's death. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Jackson"; target="new">The book itself is lauded as a classic example of haunted house fiction, earning praise from my all time favorite author, Stephen King.</a> It is a story in which four individuals take up summer residence in the famed Hill House, where they embark upon an unexpectedly brief journey to learn more about the supernatural - and perhaps even about their own selves. Each character is riddled with their own flaws and, to my great surprise, are not filled with the incessantly needy yearning for romance that is so common in other books.
I can also admit that none of the characters are particularly likable. The character that I find most tolerable is Eleanor Vance, our star for this read who clearly suffers from mental illness. Given the time in which the book takes place, it is almost heartbreaking how little others are able to pick up regarding her mental state and, when they finally do, the disdain they treat her with is extremely painful to watch. My least favorite of the cast is Mrs. Montague and her planchette. Mrs. Montague seems rather incapable of caring about anyone other than herself and goes to great lengths to undermine her husband. Her short fuse makes her utterly unbearable and, were I to cross paths with her, I can't promise that I wouldn't want to throttle her.
As far as the haunting of the manse itself goes, there's very little to it. While Jackson's prose is meticulous and gorgeous to behold, at no point did I feel any sense of unease. Much of what is meant to be unsettling is not supernatural in origin, but derived from the interactions of the characters. In a way, the reader is simply a passenger along for the ride in Eleanor's descent into madness, and it is from this that unease can be felt than by anything ethereal.
I enjoyed The Haunting of Hill House and I find it to be a pleasant read (or in this case, listen), but it is not among my favorites when it comes to horror. I felt no real need to keep going and none of the edge-of-your-seat anxiety that horror fans like myself thrive on. It is certainly a beautiful book and Hill House has a hauntingly sad past, but other than that I did not find the story to be overly impressive. While some of this could be attributed to the fact that I had seen the movie in the past, I don't really feel that is the case - especially since I seem to be in agreement with several other readers.
One of the largest determining factors for me when I'm listening to an audio book is the quality of the narration, and in this case I highly suggest the version narrated by David Warner over Bernadette Dunne. Warner's voice is far gentler on the ears and his heavy English lends an utterly unique feeling to the story. I only listened to a sample of Dunne's version and found it very painful on my ears. Warner's reading is published by Phoenix, whereas Dunne's is from Blackstone Audio. Considering that I use audiobooks in order to help me relax along the hour long commute to and from work, the quality of the recording is vital to whether or not I am capable of stomaching the book (and for this reason, I nearly dropped House).
The Haunting of Hill House was published in 1959 by Viking, six years before Shirley Jackson's death. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Jackson"; target="new">The book itself is lauded as a classic example of haunted house fiction, earning praise from my all time favorite author, Stephen King.</a> It is a story in which four individuals take up summer residence in the famed Hill House, where they embark upon an unexpectedly brief journey to learn more about the supernatural - and perhaps even about their own selves. Each character is riddled with their own flaws and, to my great surprise, are not filled with the incessantly needy yearning for romance that is so common in other books.
I can also admit that none of the characters are particularly likable. The character that I find most tolerable is Eleanor Vance, our star for this read who clearly suffers from mental illness. Given the time in which the book takes place, it is almost heartbreaking how little others are able to pick up regarding her mental state and, when they finally do, the disdain they treat her with is extremely painful to watch. My least favorite of the cast is Mrs. Montague and her planchette. Mrs. Montague seems rather incapable of caring about anyone other than herself and goes to great lengths to undermine her husband. Her short fuse makes her utterly unbearable and, were I to cross paths with her, I can't promise that I wouldn't want to throttle her.
As far as the haunting of the manse itself goes, there's very little to it. While Jackson's prose is meticulous and gorgeous to behold, at no point did I feel any sense of unease. Much of what is meant to be unsettling is not supernatural in origin, but derived from the interactions of the characters. In a way, the reader is simply a passenger along for the ride in Eleanor's descent into madness, and it is from this that unease can be felt than by anything ethereal.
I enjoyed The Haunting of Hill House and I find it to be a pleasant read (or in this case, listen), but it is not among my favorites when it comes to horror. I felt no real need to keep going and none of the edge-of-your-seat anxiety that horror fans like myself thrive on. It is certainly a beautiful book and Hill House has a hauntingly sad past, but other than that I did not find the story to be overly impressive. While some of this could be attributed to the fact that I had seen the movie in the past, I don't really feel that is the case - especially since I seem to be in agreement with several other readers.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
First off I want to address the elephant in the room, or more accurately, the serial killer in the room. Kudos to Cineworld for always engaging in dressing up banter for their movies, but honestly, I don't need to be tormented by them during the movie too. We're all familiar with the hovering member of staff who checks the screens during the performance. When the titles started to role on Halloween I was aware of the lurking figure, unlike other times though when I glanced out of the corner of my eye I wasn't greeted with the friendly face of an employee but rather the mask-clad face of a serial killer. At least he wasn't creeping up on me otherwise I would have unleashed the power of my flying handbag... you try and scare people there WILL be consequences! Saying that I would love them to re-release Scream so I could dress up as Ghostface and just tilt my head at people.
Anyway, to the film!
Having just seen the original I found it very easy to draw parallels between the two. The links were everywhere and it made for a nice familiar touch, which I found surprising as it isn't a film that I'm really that well versed in.
The opening credits were obviously a highlight and it was fun to watch the scene unfold, literally. Having not seen many of the other Halloween offerings I don't know how they dealt with Michael and Laurie's connection, not that it really matters I suppose as they tossed out the rest of the timeline out of the window for this one.
Comparing the two films you can really see how they've given Laurie some of Michael's traits. He's so much a part of her that she's even taken to lurking like him outside the school watching her granddaughter. She progresses through the film much like he did in the first, with little flashes of him in her actions like when we see her exit a restaurant and stand at the end of the path like he did after murdering his sister.
We see the escape from the transfer but we don't really know how it happened, although I had my suspicions. Yet again we see a mirror of events from the first film. The patients are roaming around and Michael attacks without mercy to get what he wants/needs.
I'll take a quick diversion here to talk about one of my dislikes about the film. The journalists doing the interviews with Michael and Laurie. I understand why they were there. Michael needed to get his identity back and some groundwork needed to be laid so that the audience could see what Laurie had been working to her whole life... but... I didn't find either character to be particularly effective and the small monologues for the tape seemed poorly executed. Yes, yes, they're just making audio notes for the final piece, but as a film they're supposed to be crafting the scene in a way that flows, and they really don't. Of course as I said, they need to be there so that Michael can get his face back so *shrug* their fate wasn't such a sad one for the story line.
I think what makes Michael so effective as the bad guy is that he's just so brazen. He's got one objective and his single mindedness means that he never stops. It doesn't matter that he's wearing his hospital clothing, he has to do something and that confidence makes him invisible to almost everyone until it's too late. Seeing him in the background of shots brings on the anticipation of what's to come. When it's dark you're squinting at an area that seems unusually framed waiting to see that face emerge from the gloom. It works incredibly well and brings almost a glee to the watcher. You know something that the characters don't... you could survive this thing.
Movies these days seem to be finding some very talented kids and the writers are furnishing them with excellent lines. Jibrail Nantambu as Julian, the ill-fated babysitting job of Haddonfield, brings the comedy in what is otherwise the bleak slasher-fest you'd expect. He's got the witty banter, the attitude, and he delivers perfectly. Watch out for my favourite piece of the movie where Vicky his babysitter attempts to go and investigate for a possible intruder. Julian knows where horror films are at, and he knows who's expendable, good job kid.
As a sequel I think it works really well. Trying to erase the knowledge that there were films in between was challenging though. It's an 18 certificate though and the more I watch them these days the more I wonder exactly how TV and film has jaded my perception of things. Sure, there's a lot of murdering! But none of it seemed particularly graphic or violent to me. Like I say... perhaps I've just become accustomed to it.
What you should do
If you enjoy horror films then I think this one would appeal. Especially if you see the original before you go. I'm sure it would work as a standalone film with only basic knowledge of the first, but there's no denying how well they'll work together in a double bill.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
As with the original, I would still like some of Laurie Strode's luck at surviving against the odds.
Anyway, to the film!
Having just seen the original I found it very easy to draw parallels between the two. The links were everywhere and it made for a nice familiar touch, which I found surprising as it isn't a film that I'm really that well versed in.
The opening credits were obviously a highlight and it was fun to watch the scene unfold, literally. Having not seen many of the other Halloween offerings I don't know how they dealt with Michael and Laurie's connection, not that it really matters I suppose as they tossed out the rest of the timeline out of the window for this one.
Comparing the two films you can really see how they've given Laurie some of Michael's traits. He's so much a part of her that she's even taken to lurking like him outside the school watching her granddaughter. She progresses through the film much like he did in the first, with little flashes of him in her actions like when we see her exit a restaurant and stand at the end of the path like he did after murdering his sister.
We see the escape from the transfer but we don't really know how it happened, although I had my suspicions. Yet again we see a mirror of events from the first film. The patients are roaming around and Michael attacks without mercy to get what he wants/needs.
I'll take a quick diversion here to talk about one of my dislikes about the film. The journalists doing the interviews with Michael and Laurie. I understand why they were there. Michael needed to get his identity back and some groundwork needed to be laid so that the audience could see what Laurie had been working to her whole life... but... I didn't find either character to be particularly effective and the small monologues for the tape seemed poorly executed. Yes, yes, they're just making audio notes for the final piece, but as a film they're supposed to be crafting the scene in a way that flows, and they really don't. Of course as I said, they need to be there so that Michael can get his face back so *shrug* their fate wasn't such a sad one for the story line.
I think what makes Michael so effective as the bad guy is that he's just so brazen. He's got one objective and his single mindedness means that he never stops. It doesn't matter that he's wearing his hospital clothing, he has to do something and that confidence makes him invisible to almost everyone until it's too late. Seeing him in the background of shots brings on the anticipation of what's to come. When it's dark you're squinting at an area that seems unusually framed waiting to see that face emerge from the gloom. It works incredibly well and brings almost a glee to the watcher. You know something that the characters don't... you could survive this thing.
Movies these days seem to be finding some very talented kids and the writers are furnishing them with excellent lines. Jibrail Nantambu as Julian, the ill-fated babysitting job of Haddonfield, brings the comedy in what is otherwise the bleak slasher-fest you'd expect. He's got the witty banter, the attitude, and he delivers perfectly. Watch out for my favourite piece of the movie where Vicky his babysitter attempts to go and investigate for a possible intruder. Julian knows where horror films are at, and he knows who's expendable, good job kid.
As a sequel I think it works really well. Trying to erase the knowledge that there were films in between was challenging though. It's an 18 certificate though and the more I watch them these days the more I wonder exactly how TV and film has jaded my perception of things. Sure, there's a lot of murdering! But none of it seemed particularly graphic or violent to me. Like I say... perhaps I've just become accustomed to it.
What you should do
If you enjoy horror films then I think this one would appeal. Especially if you see the original before you go. I'm sure it would work as a standalone film with only basic knowledge of the first, but there's no denying how well they'll work together in a double bill.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
As with the original, I would still like some of Laurie Strode's luck at surviving against the odds.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated I'll Take You There in Books
May 10, 2018
Felix Funicello is a film professor who lives in Connecticut. He is divorced and has one daughter, Eliza, who is currently working for New York Magazine. Felix also has two older sister, Simone and Frances who are an integral part of his life. Felix hold a movie club on Monday nights in the old Vaudeville theater in town. One night as he is setting up, he is visited by the ghost of Lois Weber, a renowned film director in her time. Lois shows Felix glimpses of his life along with the important women in it. Through these snapshots, Felix gains a greater understanding of the women in his life and women in general.
This book was reminiscent to A Christmas Carol, but he is visited by the same ghost, who brings three different visitors with her. Felix is first returned to his six year-old self. Where he and his sisters are helping their neighbor gather votes to become the next Rheingold Girl. Rheingold is a beer. This happens after his daughter tells him she has to write a piece about these girls.
The next transportation is a few years later when Felix is twelve. His mother and sister are talking in the kitchen about her boss being inappropriate with her at work. This part I heard just a few days after hearing day after day about a new man in a high position has been removed because of inappropriate behavior in the work place. Mind you, this is taking place in the early '60s and times were different, but some things never change. As Eliza, is telling her mother about what her boss has said, it's the mother's response that truly strikes me.
<i>"Men are men. Shapely girls like you just have to put up with stuff like that in the working world or else quit. Those are your choices."</i>
Thank God, those are no longer our choices, and that shouldn't have been the mentality then, maybe we wouldn't have all these issues today.
Also during this trip, Felix is given some news about his family that will change the dynamic forever.
The final time Lois comes to visit, the guest she brings, gives Felix a testimony that he has wondered about in the back of his mind for most of his life. That helps to fill a missing piece. The story is sad and is a part of the two previous visits from Lois.
All of these visits help Felix to be a better man, brother and father to the women in his life.
I think this is a very important book for all women to read, especially with the things going on in our world today. Told from the male point of view, I think it helps to see that some men can be empathetic to the plights of women. And this books covers a lot of those plights, from feminism, to abortion, adoption and acceptance. Years ago, I read She's Come Undone by Wally Lamb and I remember feeling the same way after reading it. Read them both.
This book was reminiscent to A Christmas Carol, but he is visited by the same ghost, who brings three different visitors with her. Felix is first returned to his six year-old self. Where he and his sisters are helping their neighbor gather votes to become the next Rheingold Girl. Rheingold is a beer. This happens after his daughter tells him she has to write a piece about these girls.
The next transportation is a few years later when Felix is twelve. His mother and sister are talking in the kitchen about her boss being inappropriate with her at work. This part I heard just a few days after hearing day after day about a new man in a high position has been removed because of inappropriate behavior in the work place. Mind you, this is taking place in the early '60s and times were different, but some things never change. As Eliza, is telling her mother about what her boss has said, it's the mother's response that truly strikes me.
<i>"Men are men. Shapely girls like you just have to put up with stuff like that in the working world or else quit. Those are your choices."</i>
Thank God, those are no longer our choices, and that shouldn't have been the mentality then, maybe we wouldn't have all these issues today.
Also during this trip, Felix is given some news about his family that will change the dynamic forever.
The final time Lois comes to visit, the guest she brings, gives Felix a testimony that he has wondered about in the back of his mind for most of his life. That helps to fill a missing piece. The story is sad and is a part of the two previous visits from Lois.
All of these visits help Felix to be a better man, brother and father to the women in his life.
I think this is a very important book for all women to read, especially with the things going on in our world today. Told from the male point of view, I think it helps to see that some men can be empathetic to the plights of women. And this books covers a lot of those plights, from feminism, to abortion, adoption and acceptance. Years ago, I read She's Come Undone by Wally Lamb and I remember feeling the same way after reading it. Read them both.
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated Quietus in Books
Feb 28, 2018
Was off to a great start, then goes downhill
Contains spoilers, click to show
***Possible spoilers you have been warned***
I was absolutely into the first half of the book. I loved the dark setting, the dark descent of madness for poor Kylie and trying to figure out what is happening to her and her world. The mood and the setting is dark and meant to be so, this part is excellent and sets the tone of the book. You get the eerie creepy feelings and the writing style is good enough that it could be played out like a movie in your head.
So Kyle as a character is all right. She has her flaws, her marriage has flaws but I’ll be honest to say I really did like her and Jack together. You knew they had major flaws and issues that should have been resolved but they just never got around to it. But their chemistry was excellent and you could feel their love even though sad to say, it was going on a path that just wasn’t meant to be. Although their relationship wasn’t that great to begin with, love was never a problem and they looked and seemed great together but it just wasn’t meant to be.
So let’s get to the plot. It started off on the right foot. Lots of creep factor. The plane crash incident well done. Kylie’s recovery, and the slow descent to what looks like madness (but isn’t) and the book tries to explain this to you while you read. Okay. I can handle this. I wanted to know what happens next.
Then we come across this incident in Kylie’s past that’s coming back to haunt her (see what I did there? Har har) okay. It’s pretty traumatic, and well you did send the guy to death because of a crime he committed so I get it.
Julius though….This guy was a grown man while Kylie was a little girl when he died and all of sudden he’s going all creepy touchy feely and managed to induce this semi wet dream/alternate reality sequence with present day Kylie while she was on public transportation. Yeah. Ok. And stop calling her Kylie Rose. It’s annoying but also creepy in a Pedo kind of way.
So after being introduced to Julius the incubus ghost wannabe the plot just slides down the hill and it becomes almost a chore to read through. I can’t believe this book has to be 608 pages as we already know what’s going on with Kylie and her crew about 200 pages in. It gets too descriptive, too mushy and it attempts to do some sort of surreal thing about life after death yadda yadda yadda.
I tried to like it. I can’t. If you cut the book in half and redid the ending so it wasn’t one long dreary part then the book would have been much better and more enjoyable to read. But this falls so short and it’s unfortunate the theme had promise and even the characters had potential.
I was absolutely into the first half of the book. I loved the dark setting, the dark descent of madness for poor Kylie and trying to figure out what is happening to her and her world. The mood and the setting is dark and meant to be so, this part is excellent and sets the tone of the book. You get the eerie creepy feelings and the writing style is good enough that it could be played out like a movie in your head.
So Kyle as a character is all right. She has her flaws, her marriage has flaws but I’ll be honest to say I really did like her and Jack together. You knew they had major flaws and issues that should have been resolved but they just never got around to it. But their chemistry was excellent and you could feel their love even though sad to say, it was going on a path that just wasn’t meant to be. Although their relationship wasn’t that great to begin with, love was never a problem and they looked and seemed great together but it just wasn’t meant to be.
So let’s get to the plot. It started off on the right foot. Lots of creep factor. The plane crash incident well done. Kylie’s recovery, and the slow descent to what looks like madness (but isn’t) and the book tries to explain this to you while you read. Okay. I can handle this. I wanted to know what happens next.
Then we come across this incident in Kylie’s past that’s coming back to haunt her (see what I did there? Har har) okay. It’s pretty traumatic, and well you did send the guy to death because of a crime he committed so I get it.
Julius though….This guy was a grown man while Kylie was a little girl when he died and all of sudden he’s going all creepy touchy feely and managed to induce this semi wet dream/alternate reality sequence with present day Kylie while she was on public transportation. Yeah. Ok. And stop calling her Kylie Rose. It’s annoying but also creepy in a Pedo kind of way.
So after being introduced to Julius the incubus ghost wannabe the plot just slides down the hill and it becomes almost a chore to read through. I can’t believe this book has to be 608 pages as we already know what’s going on with Kylie and her crew about 200 pages in. It gets too descriptive, too mushy and it attempts to do some sort of surreal thing about life after death yadda yadda yadda.
I tried to like it. I can’t. If you cut the book in half and redid the ending so it wasn’t one long dreary part then the book would have been much better and more enjoyable to read. But this falls so short and it’s unfortunate the theme had promise and even the characters had potential.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Apollo 11 (2019) in Movies
Apr 7, 2020
I was sad to miss this one at the cinema, I imagine having it up on the big screen would have been very impressive, but only one of the mainstream cinemas had it on.
Space documentaries are always interesting, to think that all of that technology was really in its infancy and we were making such big strides for humanity is mindblowing... and that's why this felt like a letdown.
It's wonderful that we're getting this unseen footage but they've turned it into a film, it's not really a documentary at all. In a documentary I expect to learn things I didn't know before, but here while I was seeing things I'd never seen it's actually not showing you a new angle on the story. It's great to see everything evolving as it did on the day and through the journey but that isn't new. With such a rich story of science and discovery behind space exploration I am at a loss as to why they would forego having a narrator.
Having a narrator adds an extra layer of information that really does add something and makes the footage accessible to new viewers. I've seen documentaries on things like this before and so some of what I was seeing on screen was recognisable, but there were still some shots where I didn't know what I was looking at. Some prompting would have been useful, it was like walking through a museum where they've taken down the labels on the exhibits.
The footage is generally well edited throughout, and as I said before, the feel is that of a film as opposed to a documentary. They're compiled picture, audio and video images together to follow the crew on and above the Earth and the fact they can line it up so well is impressive. There's a montage as the crew return to Earth and this was particularly good when paired with "Mother Country" by John Stewart.
Putting the footage together can't have been an easy task, but some of it suffered for the sake of a shot. At one point we get a slightly out of place split screen "Go" sequence which showed all the departments calling out. I liked it as an idea but the audio isn't the best quality as it carries through, and after the initial effect it's difficult to understand what's going on and that detracts from some of the impact.
I appreciate the fact they dug into the archives for everything, the studio even used their 1969 logo, and crafting music that would have been possible then was impressive... even if a lot of it wasn't as inspiring as the moments it accompanied.
While Apollo 11 itself is a mindblowing event the way this "documentary" has been produced is not. Well crafted, yes, but its lack of further detail and background had a heavy negative impact for me. If I was rating just for the event then it would absolutely be a 5 star review, as a newly produced bit of work it doesn't bring anything new to the table even with it all being new footage.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/04/apollo-11-movie-review.html
Space documentaries are always interesting, to think that all of that technology was really in its infancy and we were making such big strides for humanity is mindblowing... and that's why this felt like a letdown.
It's wonderful that we're getting this unseen footage but they've turned it into a film, it's not really a documentary at all. In a documentary I expect to learn things I didn't know before, but here while I was seeing things I'd never seen it's actually not showing you a new angle on the story. It's great to see everything evolving as it did on the day and through the journey but that isn't new. With such a rich story of science and discovery behind space exploration I am at a loss as to why they would forego having a narrator.
Having a narrator adds an extra layer of information that really does add something and makes the footage accessible to new viewers. I've seen documentaries on things like this before and so some of what I was seeing on screen was recognisable, but there were still some shots where I didn't know what I was looking at. Some prompting would have been useful, it was like walking through a museum where they've taken down the labels on the exhibits.
The footage is generally well edited throughout, and as I said before, the feel is that of a film as opposed to a documentary. They're compiled picture, audio and video images together to follow the crew on and above the Earth and the fact they can line it up so well is impressive. There's a montage as the crew return to Earth and this was particularly good when paired with "Mother Country" by John Stewart.
Putting the footage together can't have been an easy task, but some of it suffered for the sake of a shot. At one point we get a slightly out of place split screen "Go" sequence which showed all the departments calling out. I liked it as an idea but the audio isn't the best quality as it carries through, and after the initial effect it's difficult to understand what's going on and that detracts from some of the impact.
I appreciate the fact they dug into the archives for everything, the studio even used their 1969 logo, and crafting music that would have been possible then was impressive... even if a lot of it wasn't as inspiring as the moments it accompanied.
While Apollo 11 itself is a mindblowing event the way this "documentary" has been produced is not. Well crafted, yes, but its lack of further detail and background had a heavy negative impact for me. If I was rating just for the event then it would absolutely be a 5 star review, as a newly produced bit of work it doesn't bring anything new to the table even with it all being new footage.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/04/apollo-11-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Pieces of a Woman (2020) in Movies
Apr 16, 2021
Realistic view of Grieving
Films about grief are a tricky proposition, for while they can be cathartic and life-affirming, they can also be dour, depressing experiences that spiral downward under it’s own weight.
Fortunately, PIECES OF A WOMAN avoids wallowing in it’s own melancholy and gives the audience a thoughtful, heavy, exploration of grief and what grief does to a dysfunctional family.
Written by Kata Weber, who wrote this as a way to deal with her own grief, PIECES OF A WOMAN tells the tale of how a family deals with a tragedy when a home birth goes “horribly wrong” (not spoiling anything here, it’s in the marketing material).
I was fearful going into this film that we would be subjected to an intense, bloody butchery of a home birth, but Director Kornel Mundruczo and actors Vanessa Kirby, Shia LaBeouf and the always good Molly Parker gives us a loving, caring, intense and (ultimately) sad and tragic beginning to the film.
And then comes grief…and anger…and blame…and isolation.
Sitting squarely in the middle of all of this is Vanessa Kirby (Princess Margaret in the first 2 seasons of THE CROWN) in her Oscar Nominated turn as the birth mother in the middle of all of this. We follow her as she drifts in oblivion while those around her try to tell her what to do and how to feel. It is a haunted, holisitic, realistic portrayal of a person who just wants to fade into nothingness rather than feel the tragic loss.
Shia LaBeouf (TRANSFORMERS) proves, once again, that he can act as the husband/father. His character, Sean, is impotent to prevent the tragedy, care for his wife and deal with his own grief. He, too, creates a real character and the interplay between husband and wife are all too realistic.
The great, Oscar-winning Actress Ellen Burstyn (the mother in THE EXORCIST) is on board as the domineering mother of Kirby’s character who demands that someone pays for the death of the child. This is the type of showy-role that an aging, revered actress is normally Oscar nominated for and I am surprised she was not (especially because an added layer was added to her character that makes her, as well, realistic).
Credit for all of these performance has to go to Director Mundruczo for steering this ship away from maudlin and melodrama and squarely into the real world. It’s not a perfect Directing job as the film does tend to dwell on the grief and Kirby’s character does spend a good deal of time looking out the window while a solo piano plays single notes, but those are nits on an otherwise solid effort.
All-in-all I was pleasantly surprised at how moving - and real - this film is. You have to be in the mood for this movie (grief is not a happy subject) but you will be rewarded with a strong look at grief and it’s affects.
Letter Grade: A- (I could have used a few less moments of looking out the window to tinkling of the piano keys)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Fortunately, PIECES OF A WOMAN avoids wallowing in it’s own melancholy and gives the audience a thoughtful, heavy, exploration of grief and what grief does to a dysfunctional family.
Written by Kata Weber, who wrote this as a way to deal with her own grief, PIECES OF A WOMAN tells the tale of how a family deals with a tragedy when a home birth goes “horribly wrong” (not spoiling anything here, it’s in the marketing material).
I was fearful going into this film that we would be subjected to an intense, bloody butchery of a home birth, but Director Kornel Mundruczo and actors Vanessa Kirby, Shia LaBeouf and the always good Molly Parker gives us a loving, caring, intense and (ultimately) sad and tragic beginning to the film.
And then comes grief…and anger…and blame…and isolation.
Sitting squarely in the middle of all of this is Vanessa Kirby (Princess Margaret in the first 2 seasons of THE CROWN) in her Oscar Nominated turn as the birth mother in the middle of all of this. We follow her as she drifts in oblivion while those around her try to tell her what to do and how to feel. It is a haunted, holisitic, realistic portrayal of a person who just wants to fade into nothingness rather than feel the tragic loss.
Shia LaBeouf (TRANSFORMERS) proves, once again, that he can act as the husband/father. His character, Sean, is impotent to prevent the tragedy, care for his wife and deal with his own grief. He, too, creates a real character and the interplay between husband and wife are all too realistic.
The great, Oscar-winning Actress Ellen Burstyn (the mother in THE EXORCIST) is on board as the domineering mother of Kirby’s character who demands that someone pays for the death of the child. This is the type of showy-role that an aging, revered actress is normally Oscar nominated for and I am surprised she was not (especially because an added layer was added to her character that makes her, as well, realistic).
Credit for all of these performance has to go to Director Mundruczo for steering this ship away from maudlin and melodrama and squarely into the real world. It’s not a perfect Directing job as the film does tend to dwell on the grief and Kirby’s character does spend a good deal of time looking out the window while a solo piano plays single notes, but those are nits on an otherwise solid effort.
All-in-all I was pleasantly surprised at how moving - and real - this film is. You have to be in the mood for this movie (grief is not a happy subject) but you will be rewarded with a strong look at grief and it’s affects.
Letter Grade: A- (I could have used a few less moments of looking out the window to tinkling of the piano keys)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Son of Frankenstein (1939) in Movies
Oct 9, 2020
Boris Karloff (3 more)
Bela Lugosi
Basil Rathbone
Lionel Atwill
The Monster's Alive Once More
Son of Frankenstein- is a great continuation of the frankenstein franchise. Boris Karloff os back as the monster but this would be the last time he would play the monster in the universal monster universe. Its sad cause when you think of frankenstein, you think of Boris.
The plot: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) is determined to prove the legitimacy of his father's scientific work, thus rescuing the family name from disgrace. With the help of Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a grave robber, Wolf successfully reanimates the monster (Boris Karloff) his father originally brought back from the dead. But when several villagers are killed mysteriously, Wolf must find the culprit in order to vindicate his creation, or face the possibility that he may be responsible.
Universal's declining horror output was revitalized with the enormously successful Son of Frankenstein, in which the studio cast both stars.
After the ousting of the Laemmles from Universal and the British embargo on American horror films in 1936, Karloff and Lugosi found themselves in a career slump. For two years, horror films were out of favor at Universal Studios. On April 5, 1938, a nearly bankrupt theater in Los Angeles staged a desperate stunt by showing Frankenstein, Dracula and King Kong as a triple feature. The impressive box office results led to similarly successful revivals nationwide. Universal soon decided to make a big-budget Frankenstein sequel.
Son of Frankenstein marks changes in the Monster's character from Bride of Frankenstein. The Monster is duller and no longer speaks, explained by being injured by a lightning strike. The monster also wore a giant fur vest, not seen in the first two Frankenstein films, perhaps to add color to his appearance when the film was planned to be shot in color. He is fond of Ygor and obeys his orders. The Monster shows humanity in three scenes: first when he is disturbed by his image in a mirror, especially when compared to the Baron. Next, when he discovers Ygor's body, letting out a powerful scream, and later when he contemplates killing Peter but changes his mind. While the first two films were clearly set in the 1900s, this film appears to take place in the 1930s, judging by the appearance of a modern automobile.
Peter Lorre was originally cast as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, but he had to leave the production when he became ill. Replacing Lorre was Basil Rathbone, who had scored a major triumph as Sir Guy of Gisbourne in The Adventures of Robin Hood, released the previous year.
According to the documentary Universal Horror (1998), the film was intended to be shot in color and some Technicolor test footage was filmed, but for artistic or budgetary reasons the plan was abandoned. No color test footage is known to survive, but a clip from a Kodachrome color home movie filmed at the studio and showing Boris Karloff in the green monster makeup, clowning around with makeup artist Jack Pierce, is included in the same documentary.
Its a excellent universal monster film.
The plot: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) is determined to prove the legitimacy of his father's scientific work, thus rescuing the family name from disgrace. With the help of Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a grave robber, Wolf successfully reanimates the monster (Boris Karloff) his father originally brought back from the dead. But when several villagers are killed mysteriously, Wolf must find the culprit in order to vindicate his creation, or face the possibility that he may be responsible.
Universal's declining horror output was revitalized with the enormously successful Son of Frankenstein, in which the studio cast both stars.
After the ousting of the Laemmles from Universal and the British embargo on American horror films in 1936, Karloff and Lugosi found themselves in a career slump. For two years, horror films were out of favor at Universal Studios. On April 5, 1938, a nearly bankrupt theater in Los Angeles staged a desperate stunt by showing Frankenstein, Dracula and King Kong as a triple feature. The impressive box office results led to similarly successful revivals nationwide. Universal soon decided to make a big-budget Frankenstein sequel.
Son of Frankenstein marks changes in the Monster's character from Bride of Frankenstein. The Monster is duller and no longer speaks, explained by being injured by a lightning strike. The monster also wore a giant fur vest, not seen in the first two Frankenstein films, perhaps to add color to his appearance when the film was planned to be shot in color. He is fond of Ygor and obeys his orders. The Monster shows humanity in three scenes: first when he is disturbed by his image in a mirror, especially when compared to the Baron. Next, when he discovers Ygor's body, letting out a powerful scream, and later when he contemplates killing Peter but changes his mind. While the first two films were clearly set in the 1900s, this film appears to take place in the 1930s, judging by the appearance of a modern automobile.
Peter Lorre was originally cast as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, but he had to leave the production when he became ill. Replacing Lorre was Basil Rathbone, who had scored a major triumph as Sir Guy of Gisbourne in The Adventures of Robin Hood, released the previous year.
According to the documentary Universal Horror (1998), the film was intended to be shot in color and some Technicolor test footage was filmed, but for artistic or budgetary reasons the plan was abandoned. No color test footage is known to survive, but a clip from a Kodachrome color home movie filmed at the studio and showing Boris Karloff in the green monster makeup, clowning around with makeup artist Jack Pierce, is included in the same documentary.
Its a excellent universal monster film.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Hopefully this truly is Last Blood.
In Sylvester Stallone's fifth and (hopefully) final outing as one-man army John Rambo, we find the eponymous hero enjoying the quiet life on the Texas ranch he returned to at the end of "Rambo (2008)".
The character is still as reflective and composed as ever, with hints and flashbacks to his ongoing struggle with PTSD following his experiences in Vietnam. He trains horses on the ranch and acts as surrogate father to his college-bound niece, played by the relatively-unknown and absolutely stunning Yvette Monreal. He also has an unfathomably complex network of tunnels dug beneath his property, which could never have been done by one man, even in the 11 years that have past since the last movie.
The first ten minutes set the scene and familiarizes the audience with characters old and new. Having watched all four previous films in preparation for this one, it's quite sad to see how much the essence of Rambo as a person has changed. The first three all followed the same theme - a reluctant warrior with a muted self-loathing of the terrible abilities he has been blessed with, begrudgingly fighting someone else's war because he can't stop himself from doing what he thinks is right. The fourth one took the series in a different yet understandable direction - he's getting older, he's retired from the world, and he's minding his own business when trouble happens to find him. Then, the old Rambo we saw in "Rambo: First Blood - Part II (1985)" comes out and lays waste to everyone. But in this latest film, you barely recognize the character compared to the previous entries. He doesn't look or feel like the Rambo we've known over the years, which means this film struggles to look and feel like a Rambo film.
The next five minutes establishes the upcoming plot of the movie (such as it is), which is transparent and predictable. It then morphs into "Taken (2008)" on steroids! It takes a nice diversion at first, showing Rambo take on an entire Mexican people-trafficking ring, only to get the living hell beaten out of him. What you might think would happen in real life, but you kind of expected Rambo to go all "Rambo" on them, so when he doesn't, it's almost a pleasant surprise.
However, normal business soon resumes. Another tussle with some of the Mexican bad guys sets up the final act, which is Rambo vs. Every Mexican Criminal Ever - clips of which you will have seen in the trailer.
This is where the film lets itself down, if I'm honest. You would expect the finale to be the big payoff, but it actually ruins what would otherwise have been a half-decent film. It would be silly of me to criticize a Rambo film for being unrealistic. That being said, there's pushing the boundaries of belief, and then there's just lazy writing!
The final act begins. Five trucks of bad guys show up. Around 20-25 armed men are shown approaching Rambo's location. It's no spoiler to say he probably kills about 50 in total. Not sure where all the disposable enemies came from, but he didn't seem to mind.
Then there's the five-minute montage of him booby-trapping his ranch prior to the bad guys showing up. Something he did without any actual evidence they would come for him - just an assumption that somewhere there's a group of people who probably want to try and kill him, so best to be prepared. The whole scene feels like what would happen if "Deadpool (2016)" and "Home Alone (1990)" had a baby. Don't get me wrong, it was mindless, cringe-inducing, blood-soaked fun, but a lot of it felt unnecessarily complicated.
And then there's the violence itself. I love an action movie that drowns in crimson as much as the next person, but a lot of the violence felt like it was there for the sake of it. Like the producers said, 'We've got the 18-certificate, so let's make use of it.' I'm sure there's a deep-rooted psychological argument to be made for it. Like it's intentionally over the top to serve as a metaphor for the horrors Rambo suffered in Vietnam or something. Personally, I don't think this film is capable of being that deep and meaningful.
I really, really wanted this film to be good. I enjoyed the others and I wanted to enjoy this one. And I did, to an extent, I guess. But the whole film felt pointless. I understand the thinking that the series needed a proper and fitting end to the character's arc. But, if I'm being honest, you could've said the last film did that. It actually provides a better ending to the character than this one. The way he returned from Burma and is last seen approaching the family ranch after 30+ years away... you could've ended it there and left it to the audience's imaginations as to how he lived out the rest of his life. But money talks, and unfortunately, it ruined an otherwise successful and enjoyable franchise that had simply ran its course. A prime example of not knowing when to quit, this sentiment is echoed by Stallone's aging appearance, which takes away what credibility this character had left.
A real shame, but sadly, this isn't a film that's worth watching, unless you're a true die-hard fan of the character, in which case you'll want to watch it just because, but you'll be left disappointed.
The character is still as reflective and composed as ever, with hints and flashbacks to his ongoing struggle with PTSD following his experiences in Vietnam. He trains horses on the ranch and acts as surrogate father to his college-bound niece, played by the relatively-unknown and absolutely stunning Yvette Monreal. He also has an unfathomably complex network of tunnels dug beneath his property, which could never have been done by one man, even in the 11 years that have past since the last movie.
The first ten minutes set the scene and familiarizes the audience with characters old and new. Having watched all four previous films in preparation for this one, it's quite sad to see how much the essence of Rambo as a person has changed. The first three all followed the same theme - a reluctant warrior with a muted self-loathing of the terrible abilities he has been blessed with, begrudgingly fighting someone else's war because he can't stop himself from doing what he thinks is right. The fourth one took the series in a different yet understandable direction - he's getting older, he's retired from the world, and he's minding his own business when trouble happens to find him. Then, the old Rambo we saw in "Rambo: First Blood - Part II (1985)" comes out and lays waste to everyone. But in this latest film, you barely recognize the character compared to the previous entries. He doesn't look or feel like the Rambo we've known over the years, which means this film struggles to look and feel like a Rambo film.
The next five minutes establishes the upcoming plot of the movie (such as it is), which is transparent and predictable. It then morphs into "Taken (2008)" on steroids! It takes a nice diversion at first, showing Rambo take on an entire Mexican people-trafficking ring, only to get the living hell beaten out of him. What you might think would happen in real life, but you kind of expected Rambo to go all "Rambo" on them, so when he doesn't, it's almost a pleasant surprise.
However, normal business soon resumes. Another tussle with some of the Mexican bad guys sets up the final act, which is Rambo vs. Every Mexican Criminal Ever - clips of which you will have seen in the trailer.
This is where the film lets itself down, if I'm honest. You would expect the finale to be the big payoff, but it actually ruins what would otherwise have been a half-decent film. It would be silly of me to criticize a Rambo film for being unrealistic. That being said, there's pushing the boundaries of belief, and then there's just lazy writing!
The final act begins. Five trucks of bad guys show up. Around 20-25 armed men are shown approaching Rambo's location. It's no spoiler to say he probably kills about 50 in total. Not sure where all the disposable enemies came from, but he didn't seem to mind.
Then there's the five-minute montage of him booby-trapping his ranch prior to the bad guys showing up. Something he did without any actual evidence they would come for him - just an assumption that somewhere there's a group of people who probably want to try and kill him, so best to be prepared. The whole scene feels like what would happen if "Deadpool (2016)" and "Home Alone (1990)" had a baby. Don't get me wrong, it was mindless, cringe-inducing, blood-soaked fun, but a lot of it felt unnecessarily complicated.
And then there's the violence itself. I love an action movie that drowns in crimson as much as the next person, but a lot of the violence felt like it was there for the sake of it. Like the producers said, 'We've got the 18-certificate, so let's make use of it.' I'm sure there's a deep-rooted psychological argument to be made for it. Like it's intentionally over the top to serve as a metaphor for the horrors Rambo suffered in Vietnam or something. Personally, I don't think this film is capable of being that deep and meaningful.
I really, really wanted this film to be good. I enjoyed the others and I wanted to enjoy this one. And I did, to an extent, I guess. But the whole film felt pointless. I understand the thinking that the series needed a proper and fitting end to the character's arc. But, if I'm being honest, you could've said the last film did that. It actually provides a better ending to the character than this one. The way he returned from Burma and is last seen approaching the family ranch after 30+ years away... you could've ended it there and left it to the audience's imaginations as to how he lived out the rest of his life. But money talks, and unfortunately, it ruined an otherwise successful and enjoyable franchise that had simply ran its course. A prime example of not knowing when to quit, this sentiment is echoed by Stallone's aging appearance, which takes away what credibility this character had left.
A real shame, but sadly, this isn't a film that's worth watching, unless you're a true die-hard fan of the character, in which case you'll want to watch it just because, but you'll be left disappointed.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Apr 5, 2019
In a word...bland
There are many words that you can use to describe films by Tim Burton: Gothic, Bizarre, Dark, Interesting, SteamPunk, Unique, Visual.
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With the live action DUMBO, you can add another word to describe a Tim Burton film: Bland.
Based on the 1941 animated classic character of Walt Disney, DUMBO tells the tale of an animal, shamed for having a deformity...over-large ears...but when the young elephant discovers that these ears can save the circus he is in - and will help reunite him with his mother - a journey to redemption begins.
Sounds like a pretty good premise for a film, right? Unfortunately, this isn't really the theme of this film. Unlike other Disney "live action" versions of classic animated films (BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, the upcoming ALADDIN and THE LION KING), DUMBO is a live action remake only in the fact that Director Burton uses the baby elephant, separated from his mother, with over large ears who can fly. This film shows no signs of the earlier, beloved, children's film. It eliminates the songs (except as background music) and it tacks on a family drama of a returning army veteran (who's wife died while he was away) and his 2 children and a rival circus trying to steal the famed flying elephant.
Is it a children's movie? Is it a Tim Burton eerie, scary, visual delight? Well...yes...and no...on both parts and that's the problem of this film. Burton straddles a line between the two, never committing to a fun, stylistic children's film (like PADDINGTON 2) or an eerie, bizarre Tim Burton film (many, many to name but the closest I can come is BIG FISH). He restrains himself to the bland middle and it shows.
He has assembled a strong ensemble of actors to populate this world - Colin Farrell, Danny DeVito, Eva Green, Michael Keaton and Alan Arkin are all in this film - and are all bland. While, at times, this film felt every minute of it's 1 hour and 52 minute run time, I was longing for more from each of these characters, fleshing out what was the BEGINNING of interesting characters, but never getting past that. Each one of these characters are bland, bland, bland and you can see each actor trying harder and harder to push some sort of character to the screen, but never succeeding.
The only interesting characters, ironically enough, is that of Dumbo and his mother, Mrs. Jumbo. These are 2 CGI, non-speaking characters but they say more in facial expressions and movements than all of the human characters combined.
And that's the other problem with this film. Much like another Disney Live Action film, TOMORROWLAND, a large part of this film is given to showing the world that is lavishly made by the Director, Production Designer, Art Director and Cinematographer - and it is impressive indeed - but the action and characters inhabiting this world are...well...bland and that makes for a lackluster film.
One thing to note - this film is not scary, nor is it overly sad (things that I heard that this film was), so I'd be interested to hear if you have younger children (ages 7-10, say) and they saw the film - did they enjoy it? I think they just might.
I didn't, I thought this film was bland.
Letter Grade: B- (for the interesting visuals put up on the screen)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)