Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Nov 14, 2019
This sort of soft reboot of Hellboy is a truly mixed bag. It's just about watchable, and there are some things I liked, and a whole heap of things I didn't like.
Let's start with the negatives - the absolute biggest problems with Hellboy is the editing and pacing.
The quick cuts and bizzarre transitions that happen often are incredibly jarring, and stops the narrative running smoothly for much of the duration.
It almost feels as if the film has been designed for someone who gets bored easily, and will shoehorn in a new scene before giving you the chance to take in the previous one.
It also plays havoc with a lot of the already mediocre (and sometimes cringe-worthy) script - a good example of this comes right at the beginning, as Hellboy is introduced us, searching for an MIA fellow agent.... Its here that Ian McShane's character explains to Hellboy over the phone, what this agent was doing when he went missing, only for Hellboy to himself repeat it to another character seconds later - it's weird and feels lazy.
Another issue is something I seem to complain about a lot recently - CGI. A lot of the CGI throughout is not great, and it's again, a complete mixed bag. Some of the practical effects look fine. The big demons glimpsed in the trailer look fine. And then everywhere else it just shits the bed, most glaringly when it comes to Ben Daimio, a character from the comics who should be an exciting inclusion, but is dragged down buy just how awful it looks.
Another thing I also disliked was the insistence of having 'cool' rock songs playing every two minutes, especially in fight scenes that would otherwise have been entertaining. At times, it felt like I was watching Suicide Squad all over again, which is never a good thing.
A lot of the acting throughout Hellboy is also stale and unenthused. Milla Jovovich is particularly uninspiring as The Blood Queen (a villain from the comics that never enthralled me in the first place), Daniel Dae Kim (Ben Daimio) and Sasha Lane (Alice Monaghan) just seem embarrassed to be involved at all.
This does bring me on to the things a liked about Hellboy though - David Harbour won me over pretty quickly as the titular half demon, he provides the movies sparse humour, and the make up work is great - he does his absolute best to hold it all together.
Ian McShane is good also, but come on, it's Ian McShane man.
Even if they aren't represented perfectly, I still liked seeing a lot of characters from the comic book, and my love for Lobster Johnson is strong.
The monster designs are pretty great for the most part, Baba Yaga looks skin crawling, and as I said, the big demons seen in the trailers are pretty horrifying.
The violence and gore is unfortunately, mostly CGI, but is pretty effective for the most part, even if it does feel like the movie is sometimes packing in an R rating to disguise the averageness of everything else.
As mentioned above, some of the action pieces are pretty fun, but I must say, the climax of the movie is pretty underwhelming.
I didn't find Hellboy as horrible as some people made it out to be - it's certainly not as good as the original two films (although I find the first one to be quite average as it is!) but it still has some credibility, even if it's a small amount.
Unfortunately, for every step Hellboy takes forward, it's takes two back, resulting in a messy and muddled film that struggles to find an identity, and it's reeks of studio meddling.
Still though, Big Mo Harris shooting an Uzi is always a pleasure đź‘Ť
Let's start with the negatives - the absolute biggest problems with Hellboy is the editing and pacing.
The quick cuts and bizzarre transitions that happen often are incredibly jarring, and stops the narrative running smoothly for much of the duration.
It almost feels as if the film has been designed for someone who gets bored easily, and will shoehorn in a new scene before giving you the chance to take in the previous one.
It also plays havoc with a lot of the already mediocre (and sometimes cringe-worthy) script - a good example of this comes right at the beginning, as Hellboy is introduced us, searching for an MIA fellow agent.... Its here that Ian McShane's character explains to Hellboy over the phone, what this agent was doing when he went missing, only for Hellboy to himself repeat it to another character seconds later - it's weird and feels lazy.
Another issue is something I seem to complain about a lot recently - CGI. A lot of the CGI throughout is not great, and it's again, a complete mixed bag. Some of the practical effects look fine. The big demons glimpsed in the trailer look fine. And then everywhere else it just shits the bed, most glaringly when it comes to Ben Daimio, a character from the comics who should be an exciting inclusion, but is dragged down buy just how awful it looks.
Another thing I also disliked was the insistence of having 'cool' rock songs playing every two minutes, especially in fight scenes that would otherwise have been entertaining. At times, it felt like I was watching Suicide Squad all over again, which is never a good thing.
A lot of the acting throughout Hellboy is also stale and unenthused. Milla Jovovich is particularly uninspiring as The Blood Queen (a villain from the comics that never enthralled me in the first place), Daniel Dae Kim (Ben Daimio) and Sasha Lane (Alice Monaghan) just seem embarrassed to be involved at all.
This does bring me on to the things a liked about Hellboy though - David Harbour won me over pretty quickly as the titular half demon, he provides the movies sparse humour, and the make up work is great - he does his absolute best to hold it all together.
Ian McShane is good also, but come on, it's Ian McShane man.
Even if they aren't represented perfectly, I still liked seeing a lot of characters from the comic book, and my love for Lobster Johnson is strong.
The monster designs are pretty great for the most part, Baba Yaga looks skin crawling, and as I said, the big demons seen in the trailers are pretty horrifying.
The violence and gore is unfortunately, mostly CGI, but is pretty effective for the most part, even if it does feel like the movie is sometimes packing in an R rating to disguise the averageness of everything else.
As mentioned above, some of the action pieces are pretty fun, but I must say, the climax of the movie is pretty underwhelming.
I didn't find Hellboy as horrible as some people made it out to be - it's certainly not as good as the original two films (although I find the first one to be quite average as it is!) but it still has some credibility, even if it's a small amount.
Unfortunately, for every step Hellboy takes forward, it's takes two back, resulting in a messy and muddled film that struggles to find an identity, and it's reeks of studio meddling.
Still though, Big Mo Harris shooting an Uzi is always a pleasure đź‘Ť
365Flicks (235 KP) rated The Darkest Universe (2016) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Talk about a movie where you just don’t know where to start with!! Co-Directors (Yes Co) Tom Kingsley and Will Sharpe have crafted what I can only describe as my favorite completely surreal yet right down to earth drama I have watched in 2016… Wait no… In years.
As I have said recently I am on a real Indie hidden gem kick right now and the ever amazing Phil Wheat of Nerdly.co.uk asked me to check this movie out suspecting that it would be right up my street. The Darkest Universe is an absolute gem of a movie for more reasons than I can explain, but I will try.
Co-Director and Co-Writer Will Sharpe plays highly strung and highly stressed Zac Pratt. We join Zac on the verge of a complete breakdown following the disappearance of his sister and Break-up with his girlfriend. We follow him on somewhat of a journey of self realization and discovery. Zac starts up a fledging blog making video diaries of his search for his sister due to his frustration with the police coming up short. During this time we have a wonderfully interwoven series of flashbacks showing us what happened and giving us breadcrumbs of information.
A movie like this can live or die in the intricate plot woven style and this one flourishes because there is not one unnecessary moment on screen, it all matters. We find that Zac’s relationship with his girlfriend Eva (Sophia Di Martino, Channel 4s Flowers and Casualty) is strained and fragile which leads to a wonderfully awkward marriage proposal failure. While Zac would like us to believe from the get go that his sister Alice (Tiani Ghosh Co-Writer and first time acting, You couldn’t tell) is unhinged we slowly find she is probably the sanest person in his life, as she meets mis-fit wanderer Toby (Joe Thomas Inbetweeners and Fresh Meat). The relationship between Toby and Alice is almost as captivating as Sharpe’s all round performance and is just such a delicious watch.
Okay lets just get to it Will Sharpe in this movie is bloody outstanding. Think about Ezra Miller in We Need to Talk about Kevin, that is how intense this role can get, but he can also switch-up and be this charming at times funny sincere chap. There were moments I just didn’t know where it was gonna go and his performance was layered as such. Of course the script helps aswell because its to the point, at 90 minutes long the movie gets in, messes with your head a bit and gets out. Also no spoilers from me but this movie is never what you think it is and the ending is just a thing of beauty.
I take nothing away from anyone else in this movie because for her first time acting Tiani Ghosh is well above par and her chemistry with Joe Thomas is undeniable. On that note Joe Thomas of Inbetweeners fame was a surprising delight for me in this. A cheeky little cameo from fellow Inbetweener Simon Bird was received well and rounding off our cream of Brit comedy crop Chris Langham (The Thick of It) does not disappoint as Toby’s dad.
I really don’t think you will disappointed if you give this movie a shot, it has all the ingredients of what I would call an indie classic, people will find this movie and talk about it for years to come. Sharpe and Kingsley are a directing duo you have got to keep an eye on. I myself am pissed I never saw there first effort (did I mention this is just there second directorial outing) Black Pond but I will rectify that. They are miles ahead of there Ages and show a level of film-making maturity that most directors will struggle to get to. Effortless and beautiful I am so glad I will be ending 2016 with this movie.
As I have said recently I am on a real Indie hidden gem kick right now and the ever amazing Phil Wheat of Nerdly.co.uk asked me to check this movie out suspecting that it would be right up my street. The Darkest Universe is an absolute gem of a movie for more reasons than I can explain, but I will try.
Co-Director and Co-Writer Will Sharpe plays highly strung and highly stressed Zac Pratt. We join Zac on the verge of a complete breakdown following the disappearance of his sister and Break-up with his girlfriend. We follow him on somewhat of a journey of self realization and discovery. Zac starts up a fledging blog making video diaries of his search for his sister due to his frustration with the police coming up short. During this time we have a wonderfully interwoven series of flashbacks showing us what happened and giving us breadcrumbs of information.
A movie like this can live or die in the intricate plot woven style and this one flourishes because there is not one unnecessary moment on screen, it all matters. We find that Zac’s relationship with his girlfriend Eva (Sophia Di Martino, Channel 4s Flowers and Casualty) is strained and fragile which leads to a wonderfully awkward marriage proposal failure. While Zac would like us to believe from the get go that his sister Alice (Tiani Ghosh Co-Writer and first time acting, You couldn’t tell) is unhinged we slowly find she is probably the sanest person in his life, as she meets mis-fit wanderer Toby (Joe Thomas Inbetweeners and Fresh Meat). The relationship between Toby and Alice is almost as captivating as Sharpe’s all round performance and is just such a delicious watch.
Okay lets just get to it Will Sharpe in this movie is bloody outstanding. Think about Ezra Miller in We Need to Talk about Kevin, that is how intense this role can get, but he can also switch-up and be this charming at times funny sincere chap. There were moments I just didn’t know where it was gonna go and his performance was layered as such. Of course the script helps aswell because its to the point, at 90 minutes long the movie gets in, messes with your head a bit and gets out. Also no spoilers from me but this movie is never what you think it is and the ending is just a thing of beauty.
I take nothing away from anyone else in this movie because for her first time acting Tiani Ghosh is well above par and her chemistry with Joe Thomas is undeniable. On that note Joe Thomas of Inbetweeners fame was a surprising delight for me in this. A cheeky little cameo from fellow Inbetweener Simon Bird was received well and rounding off our cream of Brit comedy crop Chris Langham (The Thick of It) does not disappoint as Toby’s dad.
I really don’t think you will disappointed if you give this movie a shot, it has all the ingredients of what I would call an indie classic, people will find this movie and talk about it for years to come. Sharpe and Kingsley are a directing duo you have got to keep an eye on. I myself am pissed I never saw there first effort (did I mention this is just there second directorial outing) Black Pond but I will rectify that. They are miles ahead of there Ages and show a level of film-making maturity that most directors will struggle to get to. Effortless and beautiful I am so glad I will be ending 2016 with this movie.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Barton Fink (1991) in Movies
Dec 14, 2019
Verdict: Coen’s at Their Best
Story: Barton Fink starts as New York playwright Barton Fink (Turturro) whose latest play has seen him get the most praise. Barton gets encouraged to head to California to write movies, which would cover him for years to come on the stages of New York. Barton put up in a small hotel, gets given his first assignment, a wrestling picture, something he knows nothing about.
Barton bonds with his insurance salesman neighbour Charlie Meadows (Goodman) who always seems to have inspiration for this story, while meeting authors he idolises, waiting for his big break in the industry, meeting different producers who shows him the hellish process Hollywood can be.
Thoughts on Barton Fink
Characters – Barton Fink is the latest praised playwright in New York, he knows he can be a success on the stage only he gets encouraged to head to the Hollywood boom to make serious money with his writing skills. Barton learns quickly that he isn’t prepared for the demands of writing script especially when he doesn’t know the material they want him to write about, he struggles to settle in the area and the cheap hotel they put him up in, he only makes one friend and sees how the people in the industry always say what you want to say. Charlie Meadows is the hotel neighbour and insurance salesman that befriends Barton, the two often spend the nights talking about life’s events, while Charlie pushes Barton to become more confident. Audrey Taylor is the wife of one of the most famous authors Barton meets, he wants to use her as his muse after seeing how badly she is abused by her partner. Jack Lipnick is the producer that hires Barton, he demands the work and unlike most writers that he hires, he keeps up on Barton’s work.
Performances – John Turturro in the leading role is excellent, we can see him unravelling at the seams as he starts to lose his mind in the writing process. John Goodman is wonderful too as the friendly neighbour with a secret behind his kind-nature. When it comes to the rest of the cast we get some wonderful performance that send us into the era perfectly.
Story – The story here sees a playwright trying his hand at writing movies in the booming industry, only to learn the level of control he really has on what he write and how much time he has to get the work done. This is a story about the movie making process, while we focus more on the writing side of the filmmaking, it is focused on how being locked away in a new city can drive somebody slightly crazy. It is the story arcs that happen around the writing which become most interesting as we see just how things are never quite as they seem, this is Coen Brothers are their best, spinning what could be a routine story that sees things turned on their head.
Comedy – The comedy is the black comedy type, where we see just how twisted the comedy ends up being, with John Goodman getting most of the laughs in the film.
Settings – The LA setting shows what it would have been like in the early stages of the Hollywood boom, the era feels nature through the film.
Scene of the Movie – Flaming hallways.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The cops are too accusation heavy.
Final Thoughts – This is a dark comedy that works very well, it hits the heights every time it needs to thanks to the leading performances from Turturro and Goodman that are outstanding through the film.
Overall: Brilliant Comedy.
Story: Barton Fink starts as New York playwright Barton Fink (Turturro) whose latest play has seen him get the most praise. Barton gets encouraged to head to California to write movies, which would cover him for years to come on the stages of New York. Barton put up in a small hotel, gets given his first assignment, a wrestling picture, something he knows nothing about.
Barton bonds with his insurance salesman neighbour Charlie Meadows (Goodman) who always seems to have inspiration for this story, while meeting authors he idolises, waiting for his big break in the industry, meeting different producers who shows him the hellish process Hollywood can be.
Thoughts on Barton Fink
Characters – Barton Fink is the latest praised playwright in New York, he knows he can be a success on the stage only he gets encouraged to head to the Hollywood boom to make serious money with his writing skills. Barton learns quickly that he isn’t prepared for the demands of writing script especially when he doesn’t know the material they want him to write about, he struggles to settle in the area and the cheap hotel they put him up in, he only makes one friend and sees how the people in the industry always say what you want to say. Charlie Meadows is the hotel neighbour and insurance salesman that befriends Barton, the two often spend the nights talking about life’s events, while Charlie pushes Barton to become more confident. Audrey Taylor is the wife of one of the most famous authors Barton meets, he wants to use her as his muse after seeing how badly she is abused by her partner. Jack Lipnick is the producer that hires Barton, he demands the work and unlike most writers that he hires, he keeps up on Barton’s work.
Performances – John Turturro in the leading role is excellent, we can see him unravelling at the seams as he starts to lose his mind in the writing process. John Goodman is wonderful too as the friendly neighbour with a secret behind his kind-nature. When it comes to the rest of the cast we get some wonderful performance that send us into the era perfectly.
Story – The story here sees a playwright trying his hand at writing movies in the booming industry, only to learn the level of control he really has on what he write and how much time he has to get the work done. This is a story about the movie making process, while we focus more on the writing side of the filmmaking, it is focused on how being locked away in a new city can drive somebody slightly crazy. It is the story arcs that happen around the writing which become most interesting as we see just how things are never quite as they seem, this is Coen Brothers are their best, spinning what could be a routine story that sees things turned on their head.
Comedy – The comedy is the black comedy type, where we see just how twisted the comedy ends up being, with John Goodman getting most of the laughs in the film.
Settings – The LA setting shows what it would have been like in the early stages of the Hollywood boom, the era feels nature through the film.
Scene of the Movie – Flaming hallways.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The cops are too accusation heavy.
Final Thoughts – This is a dark comedy that works very well, it hits the heights every time it needs to thanks to the leading performances from Turturro and Goodman that are outstanding through the film.
Overall: Brilliant Comedy.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Like A Boss (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2020
Before going in I knew this was either going to be fantastic or a total disaster, it wasn't likely to fall in the middle of the scale. For the most part that was an accurate assumption.
Mia and Mel are lifelong friends and both share a passion for make-up and a more positive way of living. Their business, while a source of joy for them, is close to an end. But when Claire Luna appears on the scene Mel thinks it could be the answer to their financial worries, Mia is a little more sceptical. It appears that Claire is up to something but can they get to the bottom of everything before they lose their business, and each other?
Let us first give a round of applause to the uncredited actors in this film... Salma Hayek's breasts. They did sterling work, everyone else rather paled in comparison.
Now on to the serious things.
Let me be upfront about this... I will never want to watch this film again, if I happened across it being shown I would probably sit in silence for 83 minutes instead.
I love so many of the actors in this and yet I couldn't even rely on them to help this along. It's a fun premise and it had a cast that could definitely have made this great and yet somehow it's really quite poorly executed. Jokes didn't hit home and while I did chuckle a couple of times towards the end the beginning was not strong enough to be drama and not amusing enough to be comedy.
Billy Porter and Karan Soni probably come out the best from the whole ensemble. Porter has a very dramatic humour throughout and his delivery really helped. Soni's bitchy assistant wasn't overly complicated and had a fairly simple storyline to follow which allowed him to be more memorable.
I was rather disappointed with the hand that Jennifer Coolidge got dealt, she is amazingly funny and the humour in Like A Boss needed to give her something better to work with. Tiffany Haddish's return to over the top comedy also left me sad, having seen her in The Kitchen and being so impressed with her dramatic role I was really hoping she would try more of the same. While Mia is perfectly matched to her comedy stylings the script was severely lacking.
Everything about this seemed dated and it's very much a 90's feeling scenario. It felt like they were going for a bit of slapstick but left out the actual slapstick element. The confusion/disappointment did not stop there, the end of the film became evident quite early on and then it was just a case of waiting for it to happen without any anticipation.
The curious thing to me is the film's rating. There is absolutely no reason for this to be rated 15... that's to say that it didn't need any of the bits that would have caused it to be a 15, it easily could have been 12 and still had the same or hopefully a better impact.
Yes, there were some minor plus points but Like A Boss was overwhelmingly poor. I say that but it obviously has an audience out there because a lot of the people in our screening were laughing. Perhaps it would have helped me if so many key laughter points weren't shown in the trailer... but I think that's a little optimistic. On the plus side it did give me a chance to have a catch up with my friend around the dire movie.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/like-boss-movie-review.html
Mia and Mel are lifelong friends and both share a passion for make-up and a more positive way of living. Their business, while a source of joy for them, is close to an end. But when Claire Luna appears on the scene Mel thinks it could be the answer to their financial worries, Mia is a little more sceptical. It appears that Claire is up to something but can they get to the bottom of everything before they lose their business, and each other?
Let us first give a round of applause to the uncredited actors in this film... Salma Hayek's breasts. They did sterling work, everyone else rather paled in comparison.
Now on to the serious things.
Let me be upfront about this... I will never want to watch this film again, if I happened across it being shown I would probably sit in silence for 83 minutes instead.
I love so many of the actors in this and yet I couldn't even rely on them to help this along. It's a fun premise and it had a cast that could definitely have made this great and yet somehow it's really quite poorly executed. Jokes didn't hit home and while I did chuckle a couple of times towards the end the beginning was not strong enough to be drama and not amusing enough to be comedy.
Billy Porter and Karan Soni probably come out the best from the whole ensemble. Porter has a very dramatic humour throughout and his delivery really helped. Soni's bitchy assistant wasn't overly complicated and had a fairly simple storyline to follow which allowed him to be more memorable.
I was rather disappointed with the hand that Jennifer Coolidge got dealt, she is amazingly funny and the humour in Like A Boss needed to give her something better to work with. Tiffany Haddish's return to over the top comedy also left me sad, having seen her in The Kitchen and being so impressed with her dramatic role I was really hoping she would try more of the same. While Mia is perfectly matched to her comedy stylings the script was severely lacking.
Everything about this seemed dated and it's very much a 90's feeling scenario. It felt like they were going for a bit of slapstick but left out the actual slapstick element. The confusion/disappointment did not stop there, the end of the film became evident quite early on and then it was just a case of waiting for it to happen without any anticipation.
The curious thing to me is the film's rating. There is absolutely no reason for this to be rated 15... that's to say that it didn't need any of the bits that would have caused it to be a 15, it easily could have been 12 and still had the same or hopefully a better impact.
Yes, there were some minor plus points but Like A Boss was overwhelmingly poor. I say that but it obviously has an audience out there because a lot of the people in our screening were laughing. Perhaps it would have helped me if so many key laughter points weren't shown in the trailer... but I think that's a little optimistic. On the plus side it did give me a chance to have a catch up with my friend around the dire movie.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/like-boss-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Jan 23, 2020
All I'd been hearing about Parasite was that it was a masterpiece and amazing, so many people were getting to see previews but of course they were all in London. Then Odeon came to the rescue with their Screen Unseen program so I defected from Cineworld for an evening.
The Kim family are desperately trying to make ends meet, their cramped home is uncomfortable and located in one of the shabbiest districts of Seoul. Things take a turn when the son's friend suggests that he takes over his tutoring job for the daughter of a well off family. Ki-woo doesn't have the qualifications but all he needs is to show confidence, he decides to take the job.
Once he gets to the upscale house opportunities start to present themselves and he sees a chance to set his family up with jobs too. Bringing their mother onboard sets in motion something that no one could have seen coming.
I seriously considered not writing a review for this, please excuse me if it seems a little disjointed but I'm still not entirely convinced that I have a proper conclusion.
Coming out of the film I was a little confused, mainly because apart from hearing about it being a masterpiece I had seen people saying it was a horror... IMDb lists it as "comedy, crime, drama", at least I agree with one of those.
The contrast between rich and poor is shown perfectly throughout, from their homes to the human senses expressed, the way it's all represented on screen solidifies the differences between the two families.
In each home environment we also see it, the sleek versus the chaotic, the clean versus the dirty. The Park's designer home is white, open and ordered, the Kim's is claustrophobic, cluttered and busy. The two are illustrated perfectly on each end of the spectrum and the two overlap briefly when the Kim's briefly take over the Park's home.
I thought the acting was good but I wasn't blown away by anything, potentially more of an issue with the script for me as I wasn't keen on some of the character traits that came out. The divide between the two families is obviously something that carries through to their members, but whereas we might expect the rich to be the villains in a story (and yes, they aren't necessarily the best people in the world) it is in fact the poor that are verging on the bad side of things. It does appear that in this instance money is the corrupting influence on the Kims and they get the taste for the high life. All the actors involved are very strong in helping this come across to the audience.
Beyond this set up I wasn't left with the gushing feeling that many, MANY others were. Maybe this just went over my head, I'm the first to admit that when I go to a movie I turn my brain down. Maybe it was more thinking than I'm willing to put into a film. When films touch a lot of different genres I feel like I have some trouble with then so this could also contribute to my underwhelmed feeling. My instinct coming out was that I wanted it to be a little darker and closer to a thriller than just drama.
After one viewing I would say I wouldn't have chosen to see it again but there's an Unlimited Screening coming I feel like it's worth giving it a second viewing in case I see something I didn't see before, but I'm not sure how much it will change things.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/parasite-movie-review.html
The Kim family are desperately trying to make ends meet, their cramped home is uncomfortable and located in one of the shabbiest districts of Seoul. Things take a turn when the son's friend suggests that he takes over his tutoring job for the daughter of a well off family. Ki-woo doesn't have the qualifications but all he needs is to show confidence, he decides to take the job.
Once he gets to the upscale house opportunities start to present themselves and he sees a chance to set his family up with jobs too. Bringing their mother onboard sets in motion something that no one could have seen coming.
I seriously considered not writing a review for this, please excuse me if it seems a little disjointed but I'm still not entirely convinced that I have a proper conclusion.
Coming out of the film I was a little confused, mainly because apart from hearing about it being a masterpiece I had seen people saying it was a horror... IMDb lists it as "comedy, crime, drama", at least I agree with one of those.
The contrast between rich and poor is shown perfectly throughout, from their homes to the human senses expressed, the way it's all represented on screen solidifies the differences between the two families.
In each home environment we also see it, the sleek versus the chaotic, the clean versus the dirty. The Park's designer home is white, open and ordered, the Kim's is claustrophobic, cluttered and busy. The two are illustrated perfectly on each end of the spectrum and the two overlap briefly when the Kim's briefly take over the Park's home.
I thought the acting was good but I wasn't blown away by anything, potentially more of an issue with the script for me as I wasn't keen on some of the character traits that came out. The divide between the two families is obviously something that carries through to their members, but whereas we might expect the rich to be the villains in a story (and yes, they aren't necessarily the best people in the world) it is in fact the poor that are verging on the bad side of things. It does appear that in this instance money is the corrupting influence on the Kims and they get the taste for the high life. All the actors involved are very strong in helping this come across to the audience.
Beyond this set up I wasn't left with the gushing feeling that many, MANY others were. Maybe this just went over my head, I'm the first to admit that when I go to a movie I turn my brain down. Maybe it was more thinking than I'm willing to put into a film. When films touch a lot of different genres I feel like I have some trouble with then so this could also contribute to my underwhelmed feeling. My instinct coming out was that I wanted it to be a little darker and closer to a thriller than just drama.
After one viewing I would say I wouldn't have chosen to see it again but there's an Unlimited Screening coming I feel like it's worth giving it a second viewing in case I see something I didn't see before, but I'm not sure how much it will change things.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/parasite-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 31, 2020
Well acted - and important - film
The new Jay Roach film, BOMBSHELL - the Fox News sex scandal film - focuses on the struggles of 3 female protagonists - Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman), Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) and Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) - as they attempt to climb (or stay at the top of) the Corporate Ladder while battling sexism and a toxic work culture at Fox News. It is a powerful story that is a necessary tale in the "#MeToo" era that demands viewers to stand up and take notice.
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And with powerhouse actresses leading this film - standing up and taking notice is an easy thing to do.
Based on factual events, BOMBSHELL portrays the sexism that female on air personalities encounter at FoxNews - a place filled with "good ol' boys" who patronize and sexualize the females in the office to the detriment of the females and the benefit and gratification of the males. Surprisingly, they are joined in this by some other females in the office who figure "better them than me". At the top of the office - and the toxic work culture - is Roger Ailes (an almost unrecognizable John Lithgow) who is hailed by Fox as the man who can create the news - and profits.
Kidman, Theron and Robbie are well cast in their roles, showing nuance, concern and strength as these negative conditions rear their ugly heads over and over again. All 3 produce powerhouse performances - certainly up there amongst the best of their careers - and Theron and Robbie are well deserved Oscar nominees for their performances. Kidman was NOT nominated for her performance, but she is just as deserving as the other two.
But, for me, the real surprise - and the best performance - of this film belongs to Lithgow's portrayal of Ailes. His characterization shows a real wolf, taking advantage of his status and position, to prey upon those in his office. It is a sly, evil performance of a sly, evil man. What impressed me the most is that this performance - and this character - could have easily gone "over the top" into "pure villain" territory and Lithgow resists this temptation - to the betterment of this film, but to the detriment of his Oscar chances.
As written by Charles Randolph (THE BIG SHORT) this film has a pacing/theming issue for the first 1/2 hour of this film. Is it a serious film? Is it sarcastic look at toxic masculinity work culture? Is it an indictment on our current society as a whole? Randolph's script uses some of the same tactics as THE BIG SHORT, having performers breaking the 4th wall and commenting and narrating the events while looking directly at the camera. While this tactic worked very well in THE BIG SHORT (if you haven't seen this film, I highly recommend you do), it works less well here and Director Jay Roach (TRUMBO) wisely drops that "gimmick" after the first 1/2 hour.
This film is filled with wonderful character actors making extended (and powerful) cameos. The likes of Kate McKinnon, Allyson Janney, Holland Taylor, Connie Britton, Stephen Root, Malcolm McDowell, Robin Weigert, Mark Duplass, Richard Kind, Mark Moses and Tricia Helfer all contribute greatly to the film while shining in the little screen time they have.
A necessary - and powerful - film filled with tremendous performances that shine a light on a problem that is pervasive today. Which makes this film a must watch - as difficult as it is to watch at times.
Letter Grade: A- (the first 1/2 hour brings it down a point)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Neil Goddard (3 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Feb 27, 2020
No Actors Required
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have a theory about movies that are 100% CGI; when someone isn’t a great actor and they are required only to supply a voice and they still aren’t very good, it really stands out.
Now, imagine you’re watching a film. I don’t know, maybe a bit creature epic, larger than life with whole cities being destroyed. The creature’s look amazing and the carnage they are wreaking is fabulous; buildings, helicopters, cars, all flying around the screen with a swish of a mighty reptilian tale. Now imagine that the actors, real people, not CGI, are, at best, bland and in some instances just outright terrible.
Annoying isn’t it?
It would lead one to believe that the film makers didn’t really put any stock in the human interactions, rather just gave a huge wad of cash to an SFX company and said, “Fill your boots, the more the merrier, make everything f---ing enormous!”
Godzilla (2014) was the second time Hollywood has attempted to make a film featuring Japan’s kaiju supremo and it was the first successful attempt from Hollywood, given that the 1998 Roland Emmerich attempt was basically Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) but with added daddy issues (Roland Emmerich’s trademark).
Gareth Edwards 2014 first entry in the MonsterVerse was a huge success, financially and artistically. We saw a Godzilla that was of a scale we’d always wanted, towering over buildings, a reptilian God and we’re just the ants trying to not get squished.
Godzilla: King of Monsters attempts to up the ante by throwing a dozen or so monsters at the story. “Godzilla fought two MUTO’s did he, well… hold my beer!” Yeah, we’ll hold your beer while you get Millie Bobby Brown to stand there teary eyed for most of the film (a waste), Vera Farmiga to go from bereaved workaholic, to eco-terrorist to pointless self-sacrifice (unfathomable), and for Kyle Chandler to… well, Christ knows what Kyle Chandler was doing, apart from spitting terrible dialogue badly and then standing/sitting/walking looking angry but unconvincingly. Bradley Whitford provided some nice comic relief, he does droll sarcasm immensely well, Charles Dance is underused (and then forgotten about) and Zhang Ziyi tries to out-Kyle-Chandler Kyle Chandler in the bland, borderline useless stakes.
Worse than any failing on the human emotion side of the story are the huge liberties they take with global travel, like, one of side of the world to the other in a very short space of time. I mean Godzilla can do it because of some tunnels under the sea that he uses, possible the ones used in the science-denying sci-fi car crash abomination The Core (2003), but for the humans to just pop to Venezuela or the Antarctic is unforgivable.
This kind of leaps of reality always leads me to lose interest in the events in a film and start thinking around the script. In a film where everything everyone says is of dire emergency or import and then we see them in another part of the world some time later, what have they been talking about for all that time. Have they been napping? If so, it’s hasn’t eased any of the pointless angry posturing. Have they been chatting about boring everyday stuff? There is no hint of a relationship between any of these people who are spending potentially their last moments on earth together with alarming regularity. The world is possible about to get destroyed and you are in direct harm’s way! Shut up and nut up.
Now, imagine you’re watching a film. I don’t know, maybe a bit creature epic, larger than life with whole cities being destroyed. The creature’s look amazing and the carnage they are wreaking is fabulous; buildings, helicopters, cars, all flying around the screen with a swish of a mighty reptilian tale. Now imagine that the actors, real people, not CGI, are, at best, bland and in some instances just outright terrible.
Annoying isn’t it?
It would lead one to believe that the film makers didn’t really put any stock in the human interactions, rather just gave a huge wad of cash to an SFX company and said, “Fill your boots, the more the merrier, make everything f---ing enormous!”
Godzilla (2014) was the second time Hollywood has attempted to make a film featuring Japan’s kaiju supremo and it was the first successful attempt from Hollywood, given that the 1998 Roland Emmerich attempt was basically Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) but with added daddy issues (Roland Emmerich’s trademark).
Gareth Edwards 2014 first entry in the MonsterVerse was a huge success, financially and artistically. We saw a Godzilla that was of a scale we’d always wanted, towering over buildings, a reptilian God and we’re just the ants trying to not get squished.
Godzilla: King of Monsters attempts to up the ante by throwing a dozen or so monsters at the story. “Godzilla fought two MUTO’s did he, well… hold my beer!” Yeah, we’ll hold your beer while you get Millie Bobby Brown to stand there teary eyed for most of the film (a waste), Vera Farmiga to go from bereaved workaholic, to eco-terrorist to pointless self-sacrifice (unfathomable), and for Kyle Chandler to… well, Christ knows what Kyle Chandler was doing, apart from spitting terrible dialogue badly and then standing/sitting/walking looking angry but unconvincingly. Bradley Whitford provided some nice comic relief, he does droll sarcasm immensely well, Charles Dance is underused (and then forgotten about) and Zhang Ziyi tries to out-Kyle-Chandler Kyle Chandler in the bland, borderline useless stakes.
Worse than any failing on the human emotion side of the story are the huge liberties they take with global travel, like, one of side of the world to the other in a very short space of time. I mean Godzilla can do it because of some tunnels under the sea that he uses, possible the ones used in the science-denying sci-fi car crash abomination The Core (2003), but for the humans to just pop to Venezuela or the Antarctic is unforgivable.
This kind of leaps of reality always leads me to lose interest in the events in a film and start thinking around the script. In a film where everything everyone says is of dire emergency or import and then we see them in another part of the world some time later, what have they been talking about for all that time. Have they been napping? If so, it’s hasn’t eased any of the pointless angry posturing. Have they been chatting about boring everyday stuff? There is no hint of a relationship between any of these people who are spending potentially their last moments on earth together with alarming regularity. The world is possible about to get destroyed and you are in direct harm’s way! Shut up and nut up.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Call Me by Your Name (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
There are a swathe of European film-makers like Luca Guadagnino and Paolo Sorrentino that have the skill to make every image they print to film look like a work of art, giving you the feeling you are on the most idyllic holiday you ever had. Watching a largely silent image of a beautiful lake or a tree in the breeze, or an al fresco dinner where family and friends talk freely whilst the wine and olive oil flow is a treat I am not immune to.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
Continuing to catch up on Oscar nominated films of recent years I have missed, I went on holiday in 1982 Italy for 2 hours last night. There was culture, architecture, piano music, food, nature, and a big peachy dollop of sensuality – thinly veiled as dramatic cinema. It washed over me like a daydream! And if I say nothing really happens, I wouldn’t necessarily call it a criticism. It ambles along at such a languid pace at times, with such little conflict or incident, but to call it insignificant would be a disservice to the power of love at its palpable heart.
Essentially, it is a right of passage movie, that defies gloriously every hollywood habit of over egging the souffle. For minutes on end we watch Elio, the formidable natural talent of Timothée Chalamet, read a book, go for a swim, ride a bike, play the piano, or fuck some fruit, as he gradually descends into obsession, and ultimately love, for the older Armie Hammer as the aloof and seemingly worldly Oliver, his father’s research assistant for the Summer.
It feels for a long, long time like you might not care, such a tale of rich privilege as it is; but, by the final moments you do realise you have been drawn into the depth of feeling that is often hidden in plain sight, and that you may after all relate to the heartbreak contained in loving an idea of love and passion that is never attainable in reality. The self discovery of a passion within you as a life force is a melancholy reward in and of itself.
I know already that I must return to this film from time to time in a variety of moods, because it has a depth of subtlety that may catch me differently every time; and that is its main power. The key to which is Chalamet. His eyes and body language are so filled with hidden wonders that his words don’t always convey, that his work seems more like a strange dance than your average screen performance, that often simply takes the script and merely reads it aloud.
The remarkable career of Michael Stuhlbarg, as Elio’s father, is also noteworthy here. Take a look at how many great films he has now been a part of and gasp to think, oh wow, that is the same guy! His paternal speech to Elio at the end of this film was a highlight for me. Such gorgeous writing, that combines character with wisdom and weakness in a tapestry of care and regret. Just wonderful.
You know, I came into writing this review feeling that I had found the experience quite disposable and slight. That clearly isn’t the case. This is obviously a film you must watch again, meeting it where it wants to meet you. Not to mention I have always been a Sufjan Stevens fan, and found his contribution to the musical landscape near perfect. In conclusion, there is a banquet here masquerading as a taste of something sweet brushing the lips. I will be back for a second bite in time.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mister Roberts (1955) in Movies
Apr 10, 2020
Well Acted
A staple of Old Hollywood under the Studio System was to adapt to the film Broadway shows that were a big hit. One such hit was the 1948 WWII play MISTER ROBERTS starring Henry Fonda (who would win a Tony Award for his performance).
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)
In 1955, Paramount Studios mounted a film production of MISTER ROBERTS starring Fonda, James Cagney (in his last film role for Paramount - who he had been under contract to for 25 years), William Powell (in his last film role) and a young "up-and-comer" by the name of Jack Lemon.
Set in the waning days of World War II aboard a "cargo vessel", MISTER ROBERTS tells the tale of...well...Mister Roberts, the cargo officer who is keeping the ship afloat - serving as a buffer between the crew and the tyrannical Captain. Roberts longs for one thing - to join the war on a battleship, but the Captain knows his success is dependent on Roberts.
Paramount considered Fonda too old for the role, so they sought out younger stars like Marlon Brando and William Holden, but Director John Ford insisted on Fonda - and a wise choice it was. Fonda's easy-going natural personality - tinged with anger and regret - is perfectly suited for this role. He is just as at home joking around with the sailors as he is going mano-a-mano with the Captain. Also perfectly cast is the great James Cagney as the Captain who is only concerned about 1 thing - how he is perceived by the higher ups in the Navy. The conflict between Cagney and Fonda is dynamite and it is worth the price of admission just to watch these 2 Hollywood heavyweights go at it.
Jack Lemon won his first Oscar (as Best Supporting Actor) for portraying Mr. Roberts bunkmate, Ensign Pulver. It is a perfect match of character and actor and you can see where the greatness that is Jack Lemon (an under-rated actor) stems from. The surprise to me at this viewing was the strong work of William Powell (THE THIN MAN movie series) as Doc, the best friend of Mr. Roberts aboard the ship. He has an ease and rapport with Fonda and when Fonda, Powell and Lemon share the screen together the film sparkles.
And that's the best part - and the worst part - of this great film. It looks like a filmed stage play. Veteran Director John Ford looks like he was "mailing it in" on this one, in that he would just put his camera in one stationary position and let his actors play the scenes like they were in a play. This is either laziness - or genius - at the hands of Ford (I would argue probably a little of each). He was wise enough to know he had some incredible talent (Fonda, Cagney, Powell and Lemon) - and a strong script by Frank S. Nugent and Joshua Logan (based on the stage play by Logan and Thomas Hagen...based on Hagen's book), so he stayed out of the way as much as possible.
Consequently, the first part of this film is a bit talky and stagey looking and drags just a bit, but once the film catches it's steam - and these 4 stars light up the screen - this film is well worth watching.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: I caught Mister Roberts on the great cable channel TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES - but (as far as I can tell) it's not scheduled to be re-run there anytime soon (and is not streamable on the Watch TCM app), so you'll need to rent it at all the "normal" places (YouTube, GoogePLay, iTunes and Vudu)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Wolverine (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In 2009, we were treated to the origin story for one of Marvel’s most beloved characters: The Wolverine. Enthusiasm for the story turned to discord and malcontent for most, but if you had the ability to look past the inadequacies found in most Marvel silver-screen adaptations (as I did), then at least you would have enjoyed seeing the comic come to life.
Here in 2013, Hugh Jackman reprises his role for the 6th time, making his way to Japan to bring about one of the community’s favorite portions of the mythos: the way of the samurai, Muriko, and the Silver Samurai.
The story opens with the bombing of Nagasaki, and Logan’s survival of the atrocity. He saves a Japanese soldier from suicide, and then from the Atomic Bomb.
Fast forward to the present and we have a broken mountain man that was once Logan (Jackman). He lives in the hills, away from people, because he no longer wants to be a soldier. His immortality has become a curse.
After a rousing row with some local hunters, a representative for Yashida (the aforementioned Japanese soldier) talks Logan into going back to Japan to pay his respects to a dying man.
The story spins away from there on a turbulent ride that is equal parts drama and action.
Let’s get to my thoughts.
—————The good ———————-
The cinematography, script, acting, and editing was top-notch. The sets, costumes, effects, stunts and fight scenes were all pleasurably executed. This was a very well-made movie.
—————-The bad ————————
The plot holes were too numerous to be anything but amazingly distracting. Without giving too much away, here are just a few:
During a ceremony, in broad day light, on a huge roof, one of the main secondary characters is lurking. With as many people and security, this was HIGHLY implausible. Laughable, at best.
Ninjas are not a real thing, and they never were. They were a fable; a story told without any factual, historical basis, and their presence cheapened the film.
When the A-bomb was dropped, those who survived the actual explosion still died to the radiation within a certain range. There is no way Yashida would have survived Nagasaki the way the event was portrayed in the film.
At some point, Wolverine loses his ability to heal. It’s never clear if his regenerative powers are fully gone or just suppressed, but he can’t heal well enough to stop bleeding. With this in mind, his survival of so many shots to the body is extremely questionable.
On that same note: if he can’t heal, how did the holes made by the blades extruding from his hands heal up? After every scene in which the blades come out, his hands remain free of blood or marks.
Wolverine was clearly killing people with his claws, which I liked, but there should have been far more limb and torso severing, given how sharp his adamantium blades are and how overwhelmingly strong he is supposed to be.
The Wolverine character has an unmatched sense of smell, but it was never used in the movie, not even once. The opportunity presented itself multiple times.
These are just a few examples, and there were many more jarring discrepancies. There were so many that it detracted from the movie in an unforgivable way. Even this was totally separate from the comic-to-silver-screen transition, for which those remarks are better left to someone more learned in the comic realm.
The part I enjoyed the most came during the last 30 seconds of the film, as part of the credits. It sets up a future film. Enjoy.
All in all, The Wolverine was great. That said, if you have a critical eye, like myself, you will find many faults.
Here in 2013, Hugh Jackman reprises his role for the 6th time, making his way to Japan to bring about one of the community’s favorite portions of the mythos: the way of the samurai, Muriko, and the Silver Samurai.
The story opens with the bombing of Nagasaki, and Logan’s survival of the atrocity. He saves a Japanese soldier from suicide, and then from the Atomic Bomb.
Fast forward to the present and we have a broken mountain man that was once Logan (Jackman). He lives in the hills, away from people, because he no longer wants to be a soldier. His immortality has become a curse.
After a rousing row with some local hunters, a representative for Yashida (the aforementioned Japanese soldier) talks Logan into going back to Japan to pay his respects to a dying man.
The story spins away from there on a turbulent ride that is equal parts drama and action.
Let’s get to my thoughts.
—————The good ———————-
The cinematography, script, acting, and editing was top-notch. The sets, costumes, effects, stunts and fight scenes were all pleasurably executed. This was a very well-made movie.
—————-The bad ————————
The plot holes were too numerous to be anything but amazingly distracting. Without giving too much away, here are just a few:
During a ceremony, in broad day light, on a huge roof, one of the main secondary characters is lurking. With as many people and security, this was HIGHLY implausible. Laughable, at best.
Ninjas are not a real thing, and they never were. They were a fable; a story told without any factual, historical basis, and their presence cheapened the film.
When the A-bomb was dropped, those who survived the actual explosion still died to the radiation within a certain range. There is no way Yashida would have survived Nagasaki the way the event was portrayed in the film.
At some point, Wolverine loses his ability to heal. It’s never clear if his regenerative powers are fully gone or just suppressed, but he can’t heal well enough to stop bleeding. With this in mind, his survival of so many shots to the body is extremely questionable.
On that same note: if he can’t heal, how did the holes made by the blades extruding from his hands heal up? After every scene in which the blades come out, his hands remain free of blood or marks.
Wolverine was clearly killing people with his claws, which I liked, but there should have been far more limb and torso severing, given how sharp his adamantium blades are and how overwhelmingly strong he is supposed to be.
The Wolverine character has an unmatched sense of smell, but it was never used in the movie, not even once. The opportunity presented itself multiple times.
These are just a few examples, and there were many more jarring discrepancies. There were so many that it detracted from the movie in an unforgivable way. Even this was totally separate from the comic-to-silver-screen transition, for which those remarks are better left to someone more learned in the comic realm.
The part I enjoyed the most came during the last 30 seconds of the film, as part of the credits. It sets up a future film. Enjoy.
All in all, The Wolverine was great. That said, if you have a critical eye, like myself, you will find many faults.