Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated No Time to Die (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021 (Updated Oct 10, 2021)
What a wait it’s been for Bond 25! But Daniel Craig’s last outing as Bond is finally here and I thought it was great! It has all the elements of Bond… but perhaps not as we traditionally know it.
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Plot Summary:
We pick up immediately after the ending of “Spectre“, with Bond (Daniel Craig) and Madeleine (Léa Seydoux) all loved up and driving off into the sunset together. But their romantic getaway to Italy is rudely broken short by Spectre as elements of Madeleine’s past emerge to haunt the couple.
One element of that past – the horribly disfigured Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek) has a plan to make his mark on mankind with a biochemical weapon. And the retired Bond teams with the CIA’s Felix Leiter (a very welcome return of Jeffrey Wright) in a mission to Jamaica to combat it.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Daniel Craig, Léa Seydoux, Rami Malek, Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ana de Armas.
Directed by: Cary Joji Fukunaga.
Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Phoebe Waller-Bridge. (From a story by Purvis, Wade and Fukunaga).
Positives:
- The script has all the trappings of Bond: exotic locations; great stunts; thrilling action sequences; and more gadgets on show than in recent times. Yet it’s a real character piece too, delving far more into Bond’s emotions. The story running through it with Madeleine is both deep and emotional: something we haven’t seen since the Bond and Tracy romance in OHMSS. (And with Craig’s acting, he manages to pull this off far better than George Lazenby ever could!).
- I found the finale to be magnificent, bold and surprising. We’re back to the megalomaniac owning an island lair, à la Dr No. It even has its own submarine pen (a nod to Austin Power’s “Goldmember” perhaps!?). For me, the production design harks back to the superbly over-the-top Ken Adams creations of the Connery years. There are no sharks with frickin’ laser beams… but there could have been. (The set is a rather obvious redressing of the 007 stage at Pinewood, created of course for the tanker scenes in “The Spy Who Loved Me”. It even re-uses of the gantry level control room.)
- Craig is magnificent in his swan-song performance. There’s a scene, during the extended pre-credits sequence, where he’s sat in his bullet-ridden Aston just glowering for an extended period. I thought this was Craig’s acting at its best. I thought this again in a dramatic showdown scene with Rami Malek. Malek is not given a huge amount to do in the film, But what he does he does wonderfully, particularly in that electrifying scene with Craig.
- The film has a great deal more female empowerment than any previous Bond, with the tell-tale signs (although this might be a sexist presumption) of Phoebe Waller-Bridge on the script. Newcomer Lashana Lynch acquits herself well as the first female 00-agent, getting not just kick-ass action sequences but also her fair share of quips. But stealing the show is Ana de Armas (reunited with Craig of course from “Knives Out“). Her scenes in Cuba are brief but memorable, delivering a delicious mixture of action and comedy that makes you think “cast HER as the next Bond”!
- The music by Hans Zimmer! It’s a glorious soundtrack that pays deference not only to the action style of recent composers, like David Arnold and Thomas Newman, but particularly to the classic scores of John Barry. It actually incorporates not one but two classic themes from “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”, directly into the film. I’m even starting to warm to the Billie Eilish theme song, although I think it’s too similar in style to the Sam Smith offering from “Spectre“.
- The cinematography from Linus Sandgren (who did “La La Land“) is gorgeous: in turns colourful and vibrant for the Italian and Cuban scenes and cool and blue for the tense Norwegian action sequences.
Negatives:
- My main criticism is not of the film, but of the trailer(s). There are so many of the money shots from the film (particularly from the Matera-based action of the pre-title sequence) included in the trailers that I had an “OK, move on, seen this” attitude. Why did they have to spoil the movie so much? IT’S A NEW BOND… OF COURSE WE’RE GOING TO SEE IT. All you EVER needed for this is a 20-second teaser trailer. Just put white “Bond is Back” text on a black background and the Craig tunnel shot to the camera. Job done. It really infuriates me. B arbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, PLEASE take note!
- At 163 minutes it’s the longest Bond ever and a bit of a bladder tester. But, having said that, there are no more than a few minutes here and there that I would want to trim. To do more you’d need to cut out whole episodes, and leaving Ana de Armas on the cutting room floor would have been criminal. As the illustrious Mrs Movie Man commented, “I wish they’d bring in the half time Intermission card like they used to do in the old days”. I agree. Everyone would have been a whole lot more comfortable and less fidgety.
Summary Thoughts on “No Time to Die”: Reading the comments on IMDB for the movie, I’m perplexed at the diatribe coming from supposed ‘Bond fans’ on this one. One-star review after one-star review (despite, I note, the overall film getting an overall 7.8/10 at the time of writing). In this regard, I class myself as very much a Bond fan. (My first film at the cinema was the release of “Live and Let Die” in 1973, but I then binge-watched all the other Bond films at the cinema: they used to do repeated double-features in those days). And I thought this was a fabulous Bond film. Full of drama, action, humour and deep-seated emotion. Couldn’t be better for me, and certainly on a par with “Casino Royale” and “Skyfall” for me as my favourite Craig outings.
As the end of the end credits said – “James Bond Will Return”. Who will they cast as the next Bond? And where will they take the story from here? Two of the most intriguing movie questions to take into 2022.
(For the full graphical review and video review, please search for @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Nov 27, 2017
Decent cast performances (1 more)
Good fun
Varying quality of SFX (1 more)
Painfully safe
Justice At Last For DC Fans?
Last weekend, a movie dropped that most comic book fans have been hotly anticipating for the last few decades. The follow up to the disappointment that was Dawn of Justice, Justice League had a lot to live up to. I’m not going to try and convince you that it is a perfect movie, but I enjoyed it. If I was judging the movie on it’s own I would probably be much harsher with my rating etc, but in the context of other DCEU movies, it’s a breath of fresh air.
The first half of the movie is extremely choppy and unfocused and feels more like a grab bag of scenes cut together to resemble a story rather than any sort of coherent story. Then the last half of the movie plays it incredibly safe and plays out exactly how you would predict. There are no surprises or twists and then the credits roll and half heartedly set up a potential sequel, although with the huge amount of money Warner Bros lost on this movie if the rumoured budget amount of 300 million is to be believed, we may not be getting another entry any time soon. Which is sort of a shame because there are aspects of this movie that I really like, such as Batfleck and Jeremy Irons as Alfred.
There isn’t really much to talk about here, which is disappointing. Although Batman V Superman left a great deal to be desired as a decent comic book movie, it at least gave all of us something to talk about. The cast is alright, Affleck was just as great as Batman as he’s been up until now, Cavill puts in a decent Superman performance if you can get by that dodgy CGI upper lip, Gal Gadot is great as Wonder Woman, Ray Fisher does fine as Cyborg, Jason Momoa’s Aquaman is pretty one dimensional, but I think that’s more to do with the script than with the actor. Ezra Miller is annoying but clearly supposed to be the comic relief in the film. JK Simmons is wasted as Jim Gordon, but it’s nice to see Amy Adams in a reduced role here. I don’t hate Amy Adams, but I am not a fan of her portrayal as Lois Lane and surprisingly, she actually serves a purpose in this film, as opposed to pondering about with a camera looking surprised. The SFX varies greatly, with some really impressive visual effects and some that look like absolute garbage.
Slight spoilers going forwards I guess, but it’s not exactly a shocking revelation that they resurrect Superman from the dead in this movie, which as a long time comic book fan, I feel like could have been handled better.
Overall, it’s not the worst movie in the world; it’s not even the worst movie in this universe, but really it should be great. This movie should be so much better than, ‘okay,’ it’s the Justice League for Christssake. This film isn’t even as good as Thor Ragnarok, the third sequel in one of the least popular Avenger’s solo film. Justice League should have blown Thor out of the water, both commercially and critically! However, as a standalone film, without any context around it, it is a fun film and I did enjoy my time with it.
The first half of the movie is extremely choppy and unfocused and feels more like a grab bag of scenes cut together to resemble a story rather than any sort of coherent story. Then the last half of the movie plays it incredibly safe and plays out exactly how you would predict. There are no surprises or twists and then the credits roll and half heartedly set up a potential sequel, although with the huge amount of money Warner Bros lost on this movie if the rumoured budget amount of 300 million is to be believed, we may not be getting another entry any time soon. Which is sort of a shame because there are aspects of this movie that I really like, such as Batfleck and Jeremy Irons as Alfred.
There isn’t really much to talk about here, which is disappointing. Although Batman V Superman left a great deal to be desired as a decent comic book movie, it at least gave all of us something to talk about. The cast is alright, Affleck was just as great as Batman as he’s been up until now, Cavill puts in a decent Superman performance if you can get by that dodgy CGI upper lip, Gal Gadot is great as Wonder Woman, Ray Fisher does fine as Cyborg, Jason Momoa’s Aquaman is pretty one dimensional, but I think that’s more to do with the script than with the actor. Ezra Miller is annoying but clearly supposed to be the comic relief in the film. JK Simmons is wasted as Jim Gordon, but it’s nice to see Amy Adams in a reduced role here. I don’t hate Amy Adams, but I am not a fan of her portrayal as Lois Lane and surprisingly, she actually serves a purpose in this film, as opposed to pondering about with a camera looking surprised. The SFX varies greatly, with some really impressive visual effects and some that look like absolute garbage.
Slight spoilers going forwards I guess, but it’s not exactly a shocking revelation that they resurrect Superman from the dead in this movie, which as a long time comic book fan, I feel like could have been handled better.
Overall, it’s not the worst movie in the world; it’s not even the worst movie in this universe, but really it should be great. This movie should be so much better than, ‘okay,’ it’s the Justice League for Christssake. This film isn’t even as good as Thor Ragnarok, the third sequel in one of the least popular Avenger’s solo film. Justice League should have blown Thor out of the water, both commercially and critically! However, as a standalone film, without any context around it, it is a fun film and I did enjoy my time with it.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising (2016) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
An Unnecessarily Good Time
When the trailers for the first Bad Neighbours movie were released, I really wanted to see it as I’m a big fan of Seth Rogen comedies, but when it was released I was really underwhelmed. Then I heard they were making a sequel and while I’m sure that the first movie made money I just thought that a sequel to Neighbours was totally unneeded. I love it when I’m wrong. Bad Neighbours 2 is a million times better than the first movie and it is also a lot better than the trailers show it to be. The trailers make it out to be a silly slapstick dick joke movie, but some of the comedy is actually really original and more subtly hidden in the dialogue in the script. The slapstick humour is kept to a minimum and the comedic timing from the whole cast is spot on. To be honest going in, I thought that the sorority would annoy me and detract from the comedy in the film, but they were probably the best element in the movie. There was a heavier girl in the movie playing one of the sorority members and I initially thought she would be no more than the Melissa McCarthy or Rebel Wilson character in the movie, where she would just say I’m fat and fall over and say a dirty word and call it comedy but she actually pleasantly surprised me and she was possibly the funniest character in the movie. This film was a breath of fresh air and it totally trumped it’s predecessor. Comedy directors should take note this is how you make a good sequel to a comedy flick.
Don’t get me wrong, its not a perfect comedy by any means and some of the laughs do fall flat, but the vast majority of them do land and there were a few times where I belly laughed really loudly in the picture hall and that is something that has not happened in a while, probably not since Deadpool back in January. If you are looking to switch your brain off and enjoy a good juvenile summer comedy then I would definitely recommend this to you. Zac Effron is kind of doing a Channing Tatum impression these days in a lot of ways, but he, (like Tatum,) is so likable and charming that he pulls it off. His character, as well as Dave Franco’s character and the other guys from the first movie’s fraternity that are also in the sequel are much better written and portrayed across the board in this movie. This film is just superior in every way and it marks a rare occasion when a comedy sequel actually outshines the previous film. Don’t get me wrong though this isn’t the wittiest dialogue ever put to film either, there are plenty of dick jokes and some lazy slapstick, but for the most part the laughs are a bit deeper than what you would expect going in.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie for what it was and it really pleasantly surprised me in a big way. I’d also see it again as I’m sure there are a few jokes I missed the first time around.
Don’t get me wrong, its not a perfect comedy by any means and some of the laughs do fall flat, but the vast majority of them do land and there were a few times where I belly laughed really loudly in the picture hall and that is something that has not happened in a while, probably not since Deadpool back in January. If you are looking to switch your brain off and enjoy a good juvenile summer comedy then I would definitely recommend this to you. Zac Effron is kind of doing a Channing Tatum impression these days in a lot of ways, but he, (like Tatum,) is so likable and charming that he pulls it off. His character, as well as Dave Franco’s character and the other guys from the first movie’s fraternity that are also in the sequel are much better written and portrayed across the board in this movie. This film is just superior in every way and it marks a rare occasion when a comedy sequel actually outshines the previous film. Don’t get me wrong though this isn’t the wittiest dialogue ever put to film either, there are plenty of dick jokes and some lazy slapstick, but for the most part the laughs are a bit deeper than what you would expect going in.
Overall I really enjoyed this movie for what it was and it really pleasantly surprised me in a big way. I’d also see it again as I’m sure there are a few jokes I missed the first time around.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Russian Doll in TV
Feb 5, 2019 (Updated Feb 5, 2019)
Natasha Lyonne carries this entire series phenomenally (2 more)
Good, tight script full of quick, witty dialogue
Short and sweet
Death Becomes Her
I watched Netflix's latest series Russian Doll over the past weekend and I loved it. Natasha Lyonne stars as a woman who on the night of her 36th birthday party, is suddenly hit by a car and dies. She then comes to and finds herself again standing in the bathroom in front of the sink back at her birthday party without a scratch. Then after dying a few more times and returning to the same spot in the bathroom, she realises that she is unable to stay dead and is going to be stuck in this loop indefinitely.
I had no clue what to expect going into this one. I was a fan of Natasha Lyonne from her role in Orange Is The New Black and had heard that she had co-wrote this project and even had a hand in directing it. This peaked my curiosity enough to give it a shot, and I'm glad that I did because, (although it is only February,) this is my favourite show of this year so far.
There is of course the presence of the obvious 'Groundhog Day,' trope, but thankfully the show uses this mechanic to it's benefit and manages to tell a fairly unique story based on a pretty unoriginal story-telling device. The show was co-written by Lyonne, Amy Poehler and Leslye Headland and the writing is brilliant. The show is comedic in all of the right places while managing to achieve and maintain a more serious tone when it wants to for certain moments, especially towards the end of the series.
Consisting of eight episodes all around 30 minutes in duration, the series moves at an extremely brisk pace and it is a pace that matches the quick dialogue and editing style that the series adopts during many of the death montage sequences. This all gels together to ensure that the show never feels stagnant or dragging in any sense. The score and cinematography are also great and compliment the other aspects of the show very nicely. All of this together is what gives this show it's unique, quirky feel.
Though, none of this would work without having a reliable lead protagonist to tie the whole thing together and Natasha Lyonne pulls off this difficult task flawlessly. I have always enjoyed seeing Lyonne pop up in several projects as a solid supporting actress, but this is the first time that I have seen her in the lead role and she is phenomenal through the entire eight episodes that Russian Doll consists of. Match that with the writing and directing credits that she claims on this series and you realise that we are watching an artist with incredible talent getting to realise her vision through this project and it is a joy to witness the whole thing unfold.
Overall, Russian Doll is a fantastic series that is enjoyable from start to finish. It features brilliant writing, fantastic performances and plenty of laughs. Due to the oddball nature and tone of this wonderful series, I am not sure if I want to see a second season. However, I am very much looking forward to seeing wherever Lyonne goes from here and what she plans to do next, both as an actress and as an auteur.
I had no clue what to expect going into this one. I was a fan of Natasha Lyonne from her role in Orange Is The New Black and had heard that she had co-wrote this project and even had a hand in directing it. This peaked my curiosity enough to give it a shot, and I'm glad that I did because, (although it is only February,) this is my favourite show of this year so far.
There is of course the presence of the obvious 'Groundhog Day,' trope, but thankfully the show uses this mechanic to it's benefit and manages to tell a fairly unique story based on a pretty unoriginal story-telling device. The show was co-written by Lyonne, Amy Poehler and Leslye Headland and the writing is brilliant. The show is comedic in all of the right places while managing to achieve and maintain a more serious tone when it wants to for certain moments, especially towards the end of the series.
Consisting of eight episodes all around 30 minutes in duration, the series moves at an extremely brisk pace and it is a pace that matches the quick dialogue and editing style that the series adopts during many of the death montage sequences. This all gels together to ensure that the show never feels stagnant or dragging in any sense. The score and cinematography are also great and compliment the other aspects of the show very nicely. All of this together is what gives this show it's unique, quirky feel.
Though, none of this would work without having a reliable lead protagonist to tie the whole thing together and Natasha Lyonne pulls off this difficult task flawlessly. I have always enjoyed seeing Lyonne pop up in several projects as a solid supporting actress, but this is the first time that I have seen her in the lead role and she is phenomenal through the entire eight episodes that Russian Doll consists of. Match that with the writing and directing credits that she claims on this series and you realise that we are watching an artist with incredible talent getting to realise her vision through this project and it is a joy to witness the whole thing unfold.
Overall, Russian Doll is a fantastic series that is enjoyable from start to finish. It features brilliant writing, fantastic performances and plenty of laughs. Due to the oddball nature and tone of this wonderful series, I am not sure if I want to see a second season. However, I am very much looking forward to seeing wherever Lyonne goes from here and what she plans to do next, both as an actress and as an auteur.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated The Boyfriend Swap in Books
Apr 9, 2019
Robyn and Sydney are similar in many ways. They are both successful in their careers. Robyn is a music teacher and Sydney is a lawyer. They both have boyfriends that are very attractive. They also both don't want to take the boyfriends home with them for the holidays. For Robyn, her family is tired of seeing her with artsy men who have no future. For Sydney, she is tired of her father monopolizing the holiday with shop talk. The holidays are supposed to be fun, not judgmental and hostile. So, even though they've just met, Sydney comes up with brilliant idea, swap boyfriends for the holiday. It's just a few days, what's the harm? When Robyn finds out Sydney is dating her childhood crush, will she be able to hold it together? And how will her family handle this? Is this swap really such a good idea?
Thank you to Meredith Schorr, NetGalley, and Henery Press for the opportunity to read and review this book.
First of all, I'm not sure this is something I would have ever been able to do. To trade boyfriends at all, but with someone I don't even know. I'm not sure it would work out for me. It's been a while since I've read a book quite like this. It was cute and quirky and I can easily see this being made into a movie.
Robyn's Story
For Robyn, whenever she brings home a guy who is good to her, she has fun with, and is artsy like her parents, they let her know that he is not the right guy for her. She needs a guy with a steady job someone with a 401K and a savings account. Robyn and her boyfriend Perry have been together for almost a year, and they have a lot of fun together. But is he really, "The One"?
Bringing home Will is going to shock the hell out of her family. He was her childhood crush and now he's pretending to be her boyfriend. Will she be able to keep up the farce over the few days they spend with her family or will the secret be revealed before it's even started?
Sydney's Story
Sydney has to bring home a date for Christmas. If not her parents will try to set her up with some hideous guy she would never be interested in, but would be good for business. And she doesn't want to bring home Will. Will is a lawyer just like Sydney, and like Sydney's father. If she brings him home, all her father will do the entire time is try to recruit him to their law firm, and Sydney doesn't want to subject him to that. She also likes keeping her personal life to herself.
When Sydney brings Perry to the family dinner, she is surprised at how well her family likes him. This was not how she had planned this to go. And then when Perry deviates from her script, it makes things even worse. Will they be able to make it through the holiday without killing each other.
This book was a funny, romantic read that had me routing for one character to the end. This is the first book I have read by Meredith Schorr, but it won't be my last. I look forward to reading more of her books.
Thank you to Meredith Schorr, NetGalley, and Henery Press for the opportunity to read and review this book.
First of all, I'm not sure this is something I would have ever been able to do. To trade boyfriends at all, but with someone I don't even know. I'm not sure it would work out for me. It's been a while since I've read a book quite like this. It was cute and quirky and I can easily see this being made into a movie.
Robyn's Story
For Robyn, whenever she brings home a guy who is good to her, she has fun with, and is artsy like her parents, they let her know that he is not the right guy for her. She needs a guy with a steady job someone with a 401K and a savings account. Robyn and her boyfriend Perry have been together for almost a year, and they have a lot of fun together. But is he really, "The One"?
Bringing home Will is going to shock the hell out of her family. He was her childhood crush and now he's pretending to be her boyfriend. Will she be able to keep up the farce over the few days they spend with her family or will the secret be revealed before it's even started?
Sydney's Story
Sydney has to bring home a date for Christmas. If not her parents will try to set her up with some hideous guy she would never be interested in, but would be good for business. And she doesn't want to bring home Will. Will is a lawyer just like Sydney, and like Sydney's father. If she brings him home, all her father will do the entire time is try to recruit him to their law firm, and Sydney doesn't want to subject him to that. She also likes keeping her personal life to herself.
When Sydney brings Perry to the family dinner, she is surprised at how well her family likes him. This was not how she had planned this to go. And then when Perry deviates from her script, it makes things even worse. Will they be able to make it through the holiday without killing each other.
This book was a funny, romantic read that had me routing for one character to the end. This is the first book I have read by Meredith Schorr, but it won't be my last. I look forward to reading more of her books.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Virtually Amazing
Ready Player One by Ernest Cline is a novel with such intricate parts and such nostalgia it should be next to impossible to film. In the hands of most directors it would have failed, luckily for Warner Bros. and us as an audience the great Steven Spielberg stepped up. However is this massive task of bringing a world filled with wonder and excitement, too much for the veteran director?
Ready Player One follows Wade Watts in the year 2045, where the world is in decline and people fill their time in the OASIS, a virtual world where everything is possible and the only limits are people’s imagination. When the creator of the OASIS dies, he releases his will to challenge all the users of the OASIS to find his very own Easter Egg inside the game, whoever wins becomes the new owner.
The OASIS is filled with gaming and pop culture references that will always leave you with a smile of nostalgia. When we are transported to the OASIS, the computer animation and voice acting is pretty much spot on. A lot of the humour comes from Spielberg’s direction especially from when we see people in the real world reacting to the events within the OASIS. Without giving too much away there is a scene about halfway through that pays homage to one of the best horror movies of all time: this is the true highlight of the film that I’m sure everyone will enjoy.
In the real world, everyone gives a performance that they can be proud of, particularly Mark Rylance who plays James Halliday. Rylance’s performance is filled with wisdom and creativity but it’s clear to see the moments of vulnerability and clumsiness that could only be put across from a performer like Rylance. Tye Sheridan and Olivia Cooke give adequate performances that they can be proud of and prove that they can lead a film quite comfortably in the future. Simon Pegg also makes an appearance and although much more subtle then what you would expect from the actor, it pays off in an amazing way towards the end of the movie.
Where the film falls a bit short is in the real world. The OASIS is such a joy to explore because it has such elaborate details hidden within. When the film transitions back to the real world, however, it falls a bit flat because it’s not as fully explored. Being a dystopian world you would hope Spielberg would explore that a little more and answer questions about how it came to be.
The action sequences are very good in both the real world and the OASIS and have that classic Steven Spielberg touch you would expect. Although the script relishes in funny one-liners, these can sometimes become a little too cheesy in their delivery.
Steven Spielberg took on an impossible task and does justice to the novel and everyone should really appreciate the genius of the man. He’s created a world that everyone would dream to be part of, and I urge every person who is a fan of his work, or a major lover of pop culture to go and watch this epic tale. I would also like to plug the book, as it does differ from the film enough for you to give it a try, and you will not be disappointed if you enjoyed
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/22/ready-player-one-review-virtually-amazing/
Ready Player One follows Wade Watts in the year 2045, where the world is in decline and people fill their time in the OASIS, a virtual world where everything is possible and the only limits are people’s imagination. When the creator of the OASIS dies, he releases his will to challenge all the users of the OASIS to find his very own Easter Egg inside the game, whoever wins becomes the new owner.
The OASIS is filled with gaming and pop culture references that will always leave you with a smile of nostalgia. When we are transported to the OASIS, the computer animation and voice acting is pretty much spot on. A lot of the humour comes from Spielberg’s direction especially from when we see people in the real world reacting to the events within the OASIS. Without giving too much away there is a scene about halfway through that pays homage to one of the best horror movies of all time: this is the true highlight of the film that I’m sure everyone will enjoy.
In the real world, everyone gives a performance that they can be proud of, particularly Mark Rylance who plays James Halliday. Rylance’s performance is filled with wisdom and creativity but it’s clear to see the moments of vulnerability and clumsiness that could only be put across from a performer like Rylance. Tye Sheridan and Olivia Cooke give adequate performances that they can be proud of and prove that they can lead a film quite comfortably in the future. Simon Pegg also makes an appearance and although much more subtle then what you would expect from the actor, it pays off in an amazing way towards the end of the movie.
Where the film falls a bit short is in the real world. The OASIS is such a joy to explore because it has such elaborate details hidden within. When the film transitions back to the real world, however, it falls a bit flat because it’s not as fully explored. Being a dystopian world you would hope Spielberg would explore that a little more and answer questions about how it came to be.
The action sequences are very good in both the real world and the OASIS and have that classic Steven Spielberg touch you would expect. Although the script relishes in funny one-liners, these can sometimes become a little too cheesy in their delivery.
Steven Spielberg took on an impossible task and does justice to the novel and everyone should really appreciate the genius of the man. He’s created a world that everyone would dream to be part of, and I urge every person who is a fan of his work, or a major lover of pop culture to go and watch this epic tale. I would also like to plug the book, as it does differ from the film enough for you to give it a try, and you will not be disappointed if you enjoyed
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/22/ready-player-one-review-virtually-amazing/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
We have a problem
To say 2014’s Guardians of the Galaxy was a surprise hit is a slight understatement. Many had predicted Marvel’s gamble to sink the studio with its unknown characters and very unique sense of style, but it ended up being one of the year’s best films grossing nearly $800million.
Three years on, director James Gunn returns with the plucky group of space stars. But can lightning strike twice? Or have the Guardians had their time to shine?
Star Lord (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Rocket (Bradley Cooper), Drax (Dave Bautista) and Baby Groot (Vin Diesel) struggle to keep their newfound family together as they desperately try to unravel the mystery of Peter Quill’s true parentage in the outer reaches of the galaxy.
To our cast of space vigilantes, James Gunn has thrown in a few new personas and fleshed out some secondary characters, resulting in a film that rivals Avengers: Age of Ultron for the amount of people jostling for screen-time. Unfortunately, Volume 2 also suffers from many of the same problems as its earthly stablemate.
The biggest joy of watching Guardians 2 is seeing those secondary characters getting their chance in the spotlight. In particular, Michael Rooker’s Yondu makes a massive impact throughout the running time and is a highlight throughout. Elsewhere, Karen Gillan’s villainous Nebula gets a similar treatment, though not quite to the same extent.
Moreover, the team we have all come to know and love is on fine form, even if they are split from one another for the majority of the film. Chris Pratt is probably the biggest star in Hollywood at the moment and he looks like he’s having the time of his life. However, it’s not Star Lord that shines brightest this time around. That honour goes to Dave Bautista’s Drax.
The addition of Kurt Russell as Pratt’s father, Ego is an ingenious piece of casting and his ‘pet’ Mantis, played wonderfully by Pom Klementieff steals the show in every scene. Her brief moments with Bautista are where the film really succeeds.
Another witty script crafted by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman ensures that Guardians 2 is absolutely hilarious. Some of the one-liners are absolute corkers and it often outdoes its predecessor, raising the bar very high for future Marvel projects in the process.
To look at, Volume 2 is pleasant if unspectacular. Colourful? Yes. Detailed? Not so much. With so much going on at once, it’s easy for the film to feel overwhelmed with some of the CGI being downright poor. The opening scene in which our heroes battle a hideous octopus-like beast, whilst fun to watch, isn’t crafted to the same level as its predecessor’s introductory sequence. The finale is a little anti-climactic, unfortunately falling into the same pitfalls that so many big blockbusters do nowadays – needless and frankly ugly CGI.
Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2 is another accomplished film in the ever-expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, like Avengers: Age of Ultron, it suffers from its predecessor’s popularity and is overstuffed with too many characters elbowing for screen-time.
Unfortunately, the new approach the first film took has disappeared a little this time around. Because Volume 1 was such a delightful change from the rest of the crowd-pleasing blockbusters, Guardians 2 was bound to be a bit of a disappointment.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/28/we-have-a-problem-guardians-of-the-galaxy-2-review/
Three years on, director James Gunn returns with the plucky group of space stars. But can lightning strike twice? Or have the Guardians had their time to shine?
Star Lord (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Rocket (Bradley Cooper), Drax (Dave Bautista) and Baby Groot (Vin Diesel) struggle to keep their newfound family together as they desperately try to unravel the mystery of Peter Quill’s true parentage in the outer reaches of the galaxy.
To our cast of space vigilantes, James Gunn has thrown in a few new personas and fleshed out some secondary characters, resulting in a film that rivals Avengers: Age of Ultron for the amount of people jostling for screen-time. Unfortunately, Volume 2 also suffers from many of the same problems as its earthly stablemate.
The biggest joy of watching Guardians 2 is seeing those secondary characters getting their chance in the spotlight. In particular, Michael Rooker’s Yondu makes a massive impact throughout the running time and is a highlight throughout. Elsewhere, Karen Gillan’s villainous Nebula gets a similar treatment, though not quite to the same extent.
Moreover, the team we have all come to know and love is on fine form, even if they are split from one another for the majority of the film. Chris Pratt is probably the biggest star in Hollywood at the moment and he looks like he’s having the time of his life. However, it’s not Star Lord that shines brightest this time around. That honour goes to Dave Bautista’s Drax.
The addition of Kurt Russell as Pratt’s father, Ego is an ingenious piece of casting and his ‘pet’ Mantis, played wonderfully by Pom Klementieff steals the show in every scene. Her brief moments with Bautista are where the film really succeeds.
Another witty script crafted by James Gunn and Nicole Perlman ensures that Guardians 2 is absolutely hilarious. Some of the one-liners are absolute corkers and it often outdoes its predecessor, raising the bar very high for future Marvel projects in the process.
To look at, Volume 2 is pleasant if unspectacular. Colourful? Yes. Detailed? Not so much. With so much going on at once, it’s easy for the film to feel overwhelmed with some of the CGI being downright poor. The opening scene in which our heroes battle a hideous octopus-like beast, whilst fun to watch, isn’t crafted to the same level as its predecessor’s introductory sequence. The finale is a little anti-climactic, unfortunately falling into the same pitfalls that so many big blockbusters do nowadays – needless and frankly ugly CGI.
Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2 is another accomplished film in the ever-expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, like Avengers: Age of Ultron, it suffers from its predecessor’s popularity and is overstuffed with too many characters elbowing for screen-time.
Unfortunately, the new approach the first film took has disappeared a little this time around. Because Volume 1 was such a delightful change from the rest of the crowd-pleasing blockbusters, Guardians 2 was bound to be a bit of a disappointment.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/28/we-have-a-problem-guardians-of-the-galaxy-2-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Spy (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Comedic Gold
From the brilliant Paul Feig, director of the ridiculously funny Bridesmaids and Sandra Bullock’s laugh-a-minute The Heat comes the latest in the secret agent comedy film, Spy. But does this film, fronted by the ever-popular Melissa McCarthy have what it takes to play with the big boys in the genre?
Spy follows the story of McCarthy’s Susan Cooper, a lonely CIA analyst suddenly thrust into the limelight as a secret agent tasked with tracking the whereabouts of a nuclear weapon after the rest of the agency’s operatives have their identities compromised.
After the success of Matthew Vaughn’s Kingsman: The Secret Service, released earlier this year, expectations of another spy comedy hit for 2015 were low to say the least, especially after the critical disaster that was Reese Witherspoon’s cop comedy Hot Pursuit.
However, Feig once again strikes gold with an exciting story, an all-star cast and some breath-taking scenery and action pieces. There’s no wonder he’s been tasked with directing the Ghostbusters reboot.
Jason Statham, Rose Byrne, Miranda Hart and Jude Law take their places in a film that not only has you on the edge of your seat more times than the majority of full-blown action movies, but also will have you laughing your head off.
The gags are relentless and on the whole, very funny with McCarthy continuing to be a dynamic presence like she has shown throughout the majority of her previous work. However, the surprising stand-out is Jason Statham as super spy Rick Ford.
We’ve all seen Statham play the tough action guy and his role in Spy is certainly no different. The difference comes with his ridiculously dry sense of humour – he is genuinely funny with his serious delivery and provides the film with its best moments.
Jude Law’s charismatic agent Fine, oblivious to McCarthy’s affections for him fails to make as much of an impact as Statham’s truly brilliant characterisation.
The film’s biggest weakness is in Miranda Hart however, who channels the same character that anyone familiar with her BBC One show will know all too well. Yes, she’s funny, but only because the script allows her to be – almost masking her well-worn persona somewhat.
Elsewhere, the locations are beautiful. From Paris to Budapest, Spy takes you on a tour of Europe and is unashamed of showing these tourist hot-spots in all their glory. Feig juxtaposes sweeping shots of Paris with intimate scenes in Budapest and the film’s occasional tonal shift also utilises this filming tactic well.
Moreover, the numerous action sequences are excellently choreographed. Feig has a real love for the spy genre and it shows. From the super slow-mo used so the audience knows what is going on, to the Shirley Bassey like theme song, nowhere is untouched in creating a viable spy movie, albeit a funny one.
Overall, so far, every film Paul Feig has touched has turned to gold. The Heat wasn’t as impressive as Bridesmaids but that is simply because of how fantastic the latter is. However, with Spy there is no denying that he is back on solid ground.
Melissa McCarthy is the perfect comedy actress to front a film like this and Jason Statham’s surprising comedic turn is absolutely marvellous. Despite a less than stellar performance from Miranda Hart, Spy is fun from beginning to end with numerous twists and turns along the way.
Settle down for the ride with some popcorn and you’ll have a fantastic time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/07/comedic-gold-spy-review/
Spy follows the story of McCarthy’s Susan Cooper, a lonely CIA analyst suddenly thrust into the limelight as a secret agent tasked with tracking the whereabouts of a nuclear weapon after the rest of the agency’s operatives have their identities compromised.
After the success of Matthew Vaughn’s Kingsman: The Secret Service, released earlier this year, expectations of another spy comedy hit for 2015 were low to say the least, especially after the critical disaster that was Reese Witherspoon’s cop comedy Hot Pursuit.
However, Feig once again strikes gold with an exciting story, an all-star cast and some breath-taking scenery and action pieces. There’s no wonder he’s been tasked with directing the Ghostbusters reboot.
Jason Statham, Rose Byrne, Miranda Hart and Jude Law take their places in a film that not only has you on the edge of your seat more times than the majority of full-blown action movies, but also will have you laughing your head off.
The gags are relentless and on the whole, very funny with McCarthy continuing to be a dynamic presence like she has shown throughout the majority of her previous work. However, the surprising stand-out is Jason Statham as super spy Rick Ford.
We’ve all seen Statham play the tough action guy and his role in Spy is certainly no different. The difference comes with his ridiculously dry sense of humour – he is genuinely funny with his serious delivery and provides the film with its best moments.
Jude Law’s charismatic agent Fine, oblivious to McCarthy’s affections for him fails to make as much of an impact as Statham’s truly brilliant characterisation.
The film’s biggest weakness is in Miranda Hart however, who channels the same character that anyone familiar with her BBC One show will know all too well. Yes, she’s funny, but only because the script allows her to be – almost masking her well-worn persona somewhat.
Elsewhere, the locations are beautiful. From Paris to Budapest, Spy takes you on a tour of Europe and is unashamed of showing these tourist hot-spots in all their glory. Feig juxtaposes sweeping shots of Paris with intimate scenes in Budapest and the film’s occasional tonal shift also utilises this filming tactic well.
Moreover, the numerous action sequences are excellently choreographed. Feig has a real love for the spy genre and it shows. From the super slow-mo used so the audience knows what is going on, to the Shirley Bassey like theme song, nowhere is untouched in creating a viable spy movie, albeit a funny one.
Overall, so far, every film Paul Feig has touched has turned to gold. The Heat wasn’t as impressive as Bridesmaids but that is simply because of how fantastic the latter is. However, with Spy there is no denying that he is back on solid ground.
Melissa McCarthy is the perfect comedy actress to front a film like this and Jason Statham’s surprising comedic turn is absolutely marvellous. Despite a less than stellar performance from Miranda Hart, Spy is fun from beginning to end with numerous twists and turns along the way.
Settle down for the ride with some popcorn and you’ll have a fantastic time.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/07/comedic-gold-spy-review/