Search
Search results
BlogTouch (for Blogspot Blogger)
Lifestyle and Social Networking
App
The #1 Blogger editor for your iPhone, iPod, iPad and Mac! BlogTouch is the most powerful...
BlogTouch Pro (for Blogspot Blogger)
Lifestyle and Social Networking
App
The #1 Blogger editor for your iPhone, iPod, iPad and Mac! BlogTouch is the most powerful...
Sarah (7800 KP) rated the PlayStation 4 version of The Dark Pictures Anthology: Man of Medan in Video Games
May 29, 2020
A thrilling play
Games like this dont appeal to everyone. It's not full of action, beating people up or a massive open world full of free play. It also doesnt drag on for 40+ hours. However for people like me who struggle with those type of games, Man of Medan is a breath of fresh air.
I'd previously played and rather enjoyed Until Dawn, and I'm pleased to say this follows much in the same vein although it's probably a much shorter story. Graphically this is very impressive looking and like Until Dawn, they've thrown in yet another recognisable face (this time it's Shawn Ashmore aka Bobby from X-Men). The characters look amazing and the setting too. The story too is a good and interesting one, although it does feel a little similar to other stories (like Ghost Ship) and may be a tad predictable. We worked out what was going on well before the third act. That said, I still found it to be absolutely terrifying. Playing a game like this is a lot scarier than watching any horror film!
The gameplay works really well. The fact that you can play this with friends, either online or couch co-op, adds another fun dimension to it all. The decision making also means that there are so many different endings and outcomes (I believe there's over 60 possible ways for the characters to die) that the replayability is surprisingly better than you'd expect. Admittedly it would probably get a bit tedious trying to uncover absolutely everything and all possible outcomes, but playing a few times over is still enjoyable.
The only downsides are the lag and load issues. Most likely due to the decision making process and actions, there is a noticeable lag in some of the cut scenes and movements which is bearable but can noticeably affect the smooth running of the game. There's also the characters themselves. They look great, but they're very cliched and have very little personality or interest too them. And the script is a little cheesy at times which only further impacts with a slight dislike of the characters. Part of me actually wanted to kill them all off...
Overall a great story and an interesting game to play, if you're looking for something a little different.
I'd previously played and rather enjoyed Until Dawn, and I'm pleased to say this follows much in the same vein although it's probably a much shorter story. Graphically this is very impressive looking and like Until Dawn, they've thrown in yet another recognisable face (this time it's Shawn Ashmore aka Bobby from X-Men). The characters look amazing and the setting too. The story too is a good and interesting one, although it does feel a little similar to other stories (like Ghost Ship) and may be a tad predictable. We worked out what was going on well before the third act. That said, I still found it to be absolutely terrifying. Playing a game like this is a lot scarier than watching any horror film!
The gameplay works really well. The fact that you can play this with friends, either online or couch co-op, adds another fun dimension to it all. The decision making also means that there are so many different endings and outcomes (I believe there's over 60 possible ways for the characters to die) that the replayability is surprisingly better than you'd expect. Admittedly it would probably get a bit tedious trying to uncover absolutely everything and all possible outcomes, but playing a few times over is still enjoyable.
The only downsides are the lag and load issues. Most likely due to the decision making process and actions, there is a noticeable lag in some of the cut scenes and movements which is bearable but can noticeably affect the smooth running of the game. There's also the characters themselves. They look great, but they're very cliched and have very little personality or interest too them. And the script is a little cheesy at times which only further impacts with a slight dislike of the characters. Part of me actually wanted to kill them all off...
Overall a great story and an interesting game to play, if you're looking for something a little different.
HP
Hebrew Phrasi - Free Offline Phrasebook with Flashcards, Street Art and Voice of Native Speaker
Travel and Education
App
Anyone who has done a little traveling will know how important it is to have some local language...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Table 19 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Mean spirited and atrocious.
I really hated this film. There. BOOM. Got it off my chest.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2021) in Movies
Feb 13, 2022
Good Performances, Thin Script
Jessica Chastain is, in my opinion - and with all apologies to Glenn Close - the best actress working today that has yet to win an Academy Award. Having been nominated twice previously (Supporting Actress for THE HELP in 2012 and Actress for ZERO DARKY THIRTY in 2013 - a performance I thought she was a shoo-in Oscar winner for, she would lose to Jennifer Lawrence for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK), Chastain has earned her 3rd Oscar nomination for portraying Tammy Faye Bakker in THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE. It would be absurdly bizarre if THIS was the role she would win for.
Telling the story of Tammy Faye Bakker, the heavily made-up spouse/partner to disgraced Televangelist Jim Bakker, THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE has, at it’s core, some TERRIFIC performances by Chastain, Andrew Garfield (Jim Bakker), Cherry Jones (Tammy Faye’s mother) and Vincent D’Onofrio (Jerry Falwell), it’s a shame that these performances couldn’t be performed with a better written and directed film.
Directed by Michael Showalter and Written by Fenton Bailey, Randy Barbato and Abe Sylvie (which might explain part of the issue), THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE just doesn’t go deep enough into the characters portrayed, but - instead - opts for the superficial, opting to paint each character in one dimension. There is the “not attached to the real world/idealistic” Tammy Faye. The “he seems nice on the surface, but there is something else going on underneath” Jim Bakker. The “evil/power hungry” Jerry Falwell and the “never approving” Mother.
All of these, on the surface, are the makings of a good film, unfortunately Showalter and the 3 writers never mine the depths of these characters showing other sides and/or connecting the characters to each other.
Which is a shame for the performances of all the main characters are terrific and would have been much more so had they had better material to work with. Chastain, rightfully, has been Oscar nominated for her turn. She won’t win, but she is deserving of the nomination and would have been a quite serious contender had she had better material.
Which, ultimately, makes this film fall flat. The ingredients were there, they just weren’t put together well enough to make a satisfying experience.
Letter Grade: B- (for the performances)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Telling the story of Tammy Faye Bakker, the heavily made-up spouse/partner to disgraced Televangelist Jim Bakker, THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE has, at it’s core, some TERRIFIC performances by Chastain, Andrew Garfield (Jim Bakker), Cherry Jones (Tammy Faye’s mother) and Vincent D’Onofrio (Jerry Falwell), it’s a shame that these performances couldn’t be performed with a better written and directed film.
Directed by Michael Showalter and Written by Fenton Bailey, Randy Barbato and Abe Sylvie (which might explain part of the issue), THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE just doesn’t go deep enough into the characters portrayed, but - instead - opts for the superficial, opting to paint each character in one dimension. There is the “not attached to the real world/idealistic” Tammy Faye. The “he seems nice on the surface, but there is something else going on underneath” Jim Bakker. The “evil/power hungry” Jerry Falwell and the “never approving” Mother.
All of these, on the surface, are the makings of a good film, unfortunately Showalter and the 3 writers never mine the depths of these characters showing other sides and/or connecting the characters to each other.
Which is a shame for the performances of all the main characters are terrific and would have been much more so had they had better material to work with. Chastain, rightfully, has been Oscar nominated for her turn. She won’t win, but she is deserving of the nomination and would have been a quite serious contender had she had better material.
Which, ultimately, makes this film fall flat. The ingredients were there, they just weren’t put together well enough to make a satisfying experience.
Letter Grade: B- (for the performances)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 (2023) in Movies
May 6, 2023
A Return to Form for the MCU
Welcome back, MCU, we missed you.
With GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOLUME 3, the MCU has returned to the top ranks of movie-making, creating a thrilling, character-driven action/adventure that is emotionally charged and satisfying.
Directed and Written by James Gunn (as he has done with the first 2 Guardians films), Guardians 3 ties off the trilogy of this ragtag group of heroes in an appropriate, fun way by focusing on something that recent MCU films failed to do - it focuses on the characters and their relationships and how the out-of-this-world adventure that they are on will, ultimately, grow and enrich these characters and relationships.
Chris Pratt (Star-Lord), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax), Pom Klementieff (Mantis) and the voice of Vin Diesel (Groot) are all back and they all slip, comfortably, into their roles and relationships and it feels good to have them back together again.
Karen Gillan (Nebula) and, especially, Bradley Cooper (the voice of Rocket Racoon) shine above the rest as the script calls for their characters to grow in smart, fulfilling ways and both actors shine in these circumstances.
This film also has something that the previous few films - especially the latest Ant-Man film - were lacking…a terrific villain. Chukwudi Iwuji is terribly scary as THE HIGH EVOLUTIONARY who is so single-minded in his mission that living beings - and planets - are expendable. It is a terrific performance (and the 2nd straight strong one from Iwuji in a comic book vehicle, following his work in the HBO-MAX DCU TV Series Peacemaker). He is a talent to keep an eye on.
Of course, credit to all of this goes to James Gunn who, after some controversy, returned to helm the end of the Guardians trilogy (at least the Guardians of the Galaxy with THESE characters) and he hits the mark, finding the right blend of action and character that makes the audience care very much what happens to this group. It is a strong exit film from the MCU for Gunn and the DCU is very lucky/smart to hire him as their artistic director going forward.
A very rewarding end to the Guardians trilogy - and a return to form (at least for 1 film) for the MCU.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
With GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY, VOLUME 3, the MCU has returned to the top ranks of movie-making, creating a thrilling, character-driven action/adventure that is emotionally charged and satisfying.
Directed and Written by James Gunn (as he has done with the first 2 Guardians films), Guardians 3 ties off the trilogy of this ragtag group of heroes in an appropriate, fun way by focusing on something that recent MCU films failed to do - it focuses on the characters and their relationships and how the out-of-this-world adventure that they are on will, ultimately, grow and enrich these characters and relationships.
Chris Pratt (Star-Lord), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax), Pom Klementieff (Mantis) and the voice of Vin Diesel (Groot) are all back and they all slip, comfortably, into their roles and relationships and it feels good to have them back together again.
Karen Gillan (Nebula) and, especially, Bradley Cooper (the voice of Rocket Racoon) shine above the rest as the script calls for their characters to grow in smart, fulfilling ways and both actors shine in these circumstances.
This film also has something that the previous few films - especially the latest Ant-Man film - were lacking…a terrific villain. Chukwudi Iwuji is terribly scary as THE HIGH EVOLUTIONARY who is so single-minded in his mission that living beings - and planets - are expendable. It is a terrific performance (and the 2nd straight strong one from Iwuji in a comic book vehicle, following his work in the HBO-MAX DCU TV Series Peacemaker). He is a talent to keep an eye on.
Of course, credit to all of this goes to James Gunn who, after some controversy, returned to helm the end of the Guardians trilogy (at least the Guardians of the Galaxy with THESE characters) and he hits the mark, finding the right blend of action and character that makes the audience care very much what happens to this group. It is a strong exit film from the MCU for Gunn and the DCU is very lucky/smart to hire him as their artistic director going forward.
A very rewarding end to the Guardians trilogy - and a return to form (at least for 1 film) for the MCU.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dungeons and Dragons: Honour Among Thieves (2023) in Movies
May 26, 2023
A Ton of Fun
The BankofMarquis is not into Dungeons & Dragons - the role playing/fantasy game that the film DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: HONOR AMONG THIEVES is based on, so any Easter Eggs for fans of the game is lost here. What the BankofMarquis is into is a good, fun action/adventure film and DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS: HONOR AMONG THIEVES is all that…and more.
The 4th film to be based on the RPG game, this D&D is no relation to the previous three and should be viewed as a reboot of the franchise…and if HONOR AMONG THIEVES is an indication of where this film series will go, then the audience is in for a fun ride, indeed.
Written and Directed by John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, D&D follows a smooth talking, good-looking musician (the perfectly cast Chris Pine), his tough-as-nails best friend (the perfectly cast Michelle Rodriguez) and their merry band of thieves as they go on a quest to right wrongs and achieve a goal.
What that goal is doesn’t really matter as it is the journey - not the destination - that matters and the journey is quite fun thanks to an enjoyable cast and a script and direction that evokes memories of THE PRINCESS BRIDE, THE LORD OF THE RINGS and, yes, MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL along the way.
The cast (Pine, Rodriguez, Rege-Jean Page, Justice Smith, Sophia Lillis and Hugh Grant) know exactly what type of film they are making and jump in with both feet to have some fun, fight some creatures and make a family-friendly medieval action/adventure comedy that works.
Credit, of course, goes to Daley & Goldstein and this appears to be their first film together as Directors. If that is the case, the BankofMarquis is eager to see where they go from here.
While, I’m sure, there are plenty of Easter Eggs in this film for the D&D fan, the BankofMarquis caught none of that and just sat back and had a really fun 2+ hours, chuckling out loud on more than one occassion.
This film is now streaming on Paramount Plus. If you run across, check it out, you’ll have a good time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The 4th film to be based on the RPG game, this D&D is no relation to the previous three and should be viewed as a reboot of the franchise…and if HONOR AMONG THIEVES is an indication of where this film series will go, then the audience is in for a fun ride, indeed.
Written and Directed by John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein, D&D follows a smooth talking, good-looking musician (the perfectly cast Chris Pine), his tough-as-nails best friend (the perfectly cast Michelle Rodriguez) and their merry band of thieves as they go on a quest to right wrongs and achieve a goal.
What that goal is doesn’t really matter as it is the journey - not the destination - that matters and the journey is quite fun thanks to an enjoyable cast and a script and direction that evokes memories of THE PRINCESS BRIDE, THE LORD OF THE RINGS and, yes, MONTY PYTHON AND THE HOLY GRAIL along the way.
The cast (Pine, Rodriguez, Rege-Jean Page, Justice Smith, Sophia Lillis and Hugh Grant) know exactly what type of film they are making and jump in with both feet to have some fun, fight some creatures and make a family-friendly medieval action/adventure comedy that works.
Credit, of course, goes to Daley & Goldstein and this appears to be their first film together as Directors. If that is the case, the BankofMarquis is eager to see where they go from here.
While, I’m sure, there are plenty of Easter Eggs in this film for the D&D fan, the BankofMarquis caught none of that and just sat back and had a really fun 2+ hours, chuckling out loud on more than one occassion.
This film is now streaming on Paramount Plus. If you run across, check it out, you’ll have a good time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Running with the Werewolf (Darkaway Island #1)
Book
Welcome to Darkaway Island: A destination resort for supernaturals. Where Monsters Come to Play! ...
Paranormal Romance Rom-Com
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!