Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Halloween (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
“Halloween” has long been considered by many to have been the film that started the “Slasher” subculture. The independent movie became a box office smash and made Michael Myers a cultural icon ever since its debut in 1978.
Although multiple sequels and a reboot followed over the years; they did not match the intensity of the original as they opted for higher body counts and gore versus suspense and story and in many ways became almost a parody of themselves as Michael would cut down cast after cast of teens and anyone else in his way.
The new film takes the approach that none of the films after the first ever happened so instead of Michael stalking Lorrie in a hospital in “Halloween 2”; he was captured and incarcerated in an mental institute for the last forty years where he has remained silent despite his Doctor (Haluk Bilginer) best efforts to get him to speak as he attempts to understand what motivates a person described as pure evil.
The forty years since “The Night He Came Home” has not been kind to Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis); as since her encounter with Michael: she has become a hard drinking isolationist who suffers from severe Post Traumatic Syndrome. Laurie has become obsessed with guns, weapons, and protection to the point that it has cost her two marriages and even had her only child Karen (Judy Greer) taken from her by the state which has resulted in her having a fractured relationship with her and her granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak).
When a pair of journalists attempt to interview Laurie to try to get her to agree to a face to face with Michael; it sets a chain of events into motion which leads to Michael escaping during a prison transfer.
Michael wastes no time in returning home leaving a trail of death in his path and sets him on a collision course with Laurie who has spent the last forty years preparing for his return.
The film is a true sequel to the original as aside from the second film; it is the closest in tone and theme to the original. While it does have more gore and a higher body count in keeping with the modern expectations of a film of this type, writers David Gordon Green and Danny McBride clearly understand the source material and have crafted an extension of the original versus a continuation refurbished. The fact that John Carpenter has returned as an Executive Producer also helps.
The film wisely sets the focus on the characters which makes the horror aspects more compelling as this is not a bunch of anonymous victims we are watching.
A sequel is reportedly in development and I hope this creative team returns as this was a truly worthy sequel to the classic original that was long overdue.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/17/halloween/
Although multiple sequels and a reboot followed over the years; they did not match the intensity of the original as they opted for higher body counts and gore versus suspense and story and in many ways became almost a parody of themselves as Michael would cut down cast after cast of teens and anyone else in his way.
The new film takes the approach that none of the films after the first ever happened so instead of Michael stalking Lorrie in a hospital in “Halloween 2”; he was captured and incarcerated in an mental institute for the last forty years where he has remained silent despite his Doctor (Haluk Bilginer) best efforts to get him to speak as he attempts to understand what motivates a person described as pure evil.
The forty years since “The Night He Came Home” has not been kind to Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis); as since her encounter with Michael: she has become a hard drinking isolationist who suffers from severe Post Traumatic Syndrome. Laurie has become obsessed with guns, weapons, and protection to the point that it has cost her two marriages and even had her only child Karen (Judy Greer) taken from her by the state which has resulted in her having a fractured relationship with her and her granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak).
When a pair of journalists attempt to interview Laurie to try to get her to agree to a face to face with Michael; it sets a chain of events into motion which leads to Michael escaping during a prison transfer.
Michael wastes no time in returning home leaving a trail of death in his path and sets him on a collision course with Laurie who has spent the last forty years preparing for his return.
The film is a true sequel to the original as aside from the second film; it is the closest in tone and theme to the original. While it does have more gore and a higher body count in keeping with the modern expectations of a film of this type, writers David Gordon Green and Danny McBride clearly understand the source material and have crafted an extension of the original versus a continuation refurbished. The fact that John Carpenter has returned as an Executive Producer also helps.
The film wisely sets the focus on the characters which makes the horror aspects more compelling as this is not a bunch of anonymous victims we are watching.
A sequel is reportedly in development and I hope this creative team returns as this was a truly worthy sequel to the classic original that was long overdue.
http://sknr.net/2018/10/17/halloween/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Growing up I remember watching Alfred Hitchcock Presents on USA network and catching the occasional twilight zone on the weekends. In fact, it’s hard to believe that our second TV was a small black and white 13” TV that we would watch all types of shows on when our living room TV was otherwise preoccupied. While all these shows were only available in black and white, they still portrayed a frightening imagery that likely would lose a lot of their suspense if the show had been presented in color. The Lighthouse, the second feature directed by Robert Eggers (The Witch) utilizes not only a black and white picture to build on the dread of loneliness the film wishes to convey, but also presents itself in a boxy format, to better mimic silent films of a bygone era.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Pandora's Box (1929) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Pandora’s Box was one of the last films of the silent era, a period of transition to sound which I believe set the art of cinematography back a decade.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When we last saw former cop turned wasteland warrior Max, it was nearly 30 years ago. Writer/Director George Miller had envisioned a follow up back in 2000, but various factors delayed the film so much that star Mel Gibson believed he had become too old to play the character which opened the door for Tom Hardy to don the knee brace of the famous character.
In “Fury Road”, fans are given a lavish spectacle that is one non-stop ride of intensity that is as my wife put it, “pushing me so far back into my seat that I am almost in the row behind us”.
When Max is captured by a vicious group lead by Immortal Joe, he stumbles into a true hell on earth as Joe has legions of warriors, most of whom have various health issues, it is assumed from the post nuclear world in which they live. They use captured individuals as blood donors to help make the sick live longer and Joe himself controls a large supply of fresh water as well as oversees what he considers his breeding stock of women.
When Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), goes rogue and abducts Joe’s harem, this begins a breakneck and deadly pursuit across the wastelands where Max finds himself literally chained to the front of a car as a blood bag for the driver.
Amidst the eventually carnage that follows, Max is able to free himself and forges an uneasy alliance with Furiosa as she is attempting to lead the women she has liberated from Joe to safety.
With Joe and his large band of followers hot on their heels, Max must once again face overwhelming odds to save the day.
The film does an amazing job of creating an intense visual spectacle as the car chases and combat take up a good half the film and they are absolutely breathtaking to watch. CGI is kept to a minimum and what you see on the screen is a clash of metal as vehicles flip through the air, crash, and explode in spectacular fashion.
The film though is light on details as much of the story is left for you to read between the lines and fill in the blanks. Theron has explained her characters motivations very well in interviews but in the film it is at times murky. The limited dialogue in the film can at times be hard to understand due to accent and a form of “New Speak” but it is Hardy himself who is most interesting. He plays Max as a strong and silent type who is haunted by ghosts of his past, the people he could not save are a constant presence in his life as he sees them in his dreams and when he is awake, this leads to a character who is reduced to little more than pure survival instinct and does not allow for much in the way of character development.
In many ways this is a reintroduction of Max to a new generation so much of the charisma and intensity that was a part of Gibson’s portrayal has been scaled back to a world weary individual who has pretty much given up on finding the better life that he lost many years ago.
Miller has said he has enough material for two more films and if they are in the same league as this one, I would love to see further adventures for Max, let us just hope the wait is not as long next time out.
http://sknr.net/2015/05/14/mad-max-fury-road/
In “Fury Road”, fans are given a lavish spectacle that is one non-stop ride of intensity that is as my wife put it, “pushing me so far back into my seat that I am almost in the row behind us”.
When Max is captured by a vicious group lead by Immortal Joe, he stumbles into a true hell on earth as Joe has legions of warriors, most of whom have various health issues, it is assumed from the post nuclear world in which they live. They use captured individuals as blood donors to help make the sick live longer and Joe himself controls a large supply of fresh water as well as oversees what he considers his breeding stock of women.
When Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), goes rogue and abducts Joe’s harem, this begins a breakneck and deadly pursuit across the wastelands where Max finds himself literally chained to the front of a car as a blood bag for the driver.
Amidst the eventually carnage that follows, Max is able to free himself and forges an uneasy alliance with Furiosa as she is attempting to lead the women she has liberated from Joe to safety.
With Joe and his large band of followers hot on their heels, Max must once again face overwhelming odds to save the day.
The film does an amazing job of creating an intense visual spectacle as the car chases and combat take up a good half the film and they are absolutely breathtaking to watch. CGI is kept to a minimum and what you see on the screen is a clash of metal as vehicles flip through the air, crash, and explode in spectacular fashion.
The film though is light on details as much of the story is left for you to read between the lines and fill in the blanks. Theron has explained her characters motivations very well in interviews but in the film it is at times murky. The limited dialogue in the film can at times be hard to understand due to accent and a form of “New Speak” but it is Hardy himself who is most interesting. He plays Max as a strong and silent type who is haunted by ghosts of his past, the people he could not save are a constant presence in his life as he sees them in his dreams and when he is awake, this leads to a character who is reduced to little more than pure survival instinct and does not allow for much in the way of character development.
In many ways this is a reintroduction of Max to a new generation so much of the charisma and intensity that was a part of Gibson’s portrayal has been scaled back to a world weary individual who has pretty much given up on finding the better life that he lost many years ago.
Miller has said he has enough material for two more films and if they are in the same league as this one, I would love to see further adventures for Max, let us just hope the wait is not as long next time out.
http://sknr.net/2015/05/14/mad-max-fury-road/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When I first heard that Warner Bros. was planning a series of films based on the classic DC Comics characters akin to what Marvel has successfully done, I was intrigued with the possibilities. With the release of Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, we get the first look into that universe and I have to say it is one that has more than a few stumbles.
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/
JT (287 KP) rated The Raid 2 (2014) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Stop….pause….take a breath, you’ll need to catch it after witnessing one of the finest action films made for some time.
The follow up to The Raid packs an even harder punch, with our hero Rama (Iko Uwais) sent undercover to bring down a crime family and uncover yet more police corruption.
The first film was simplistic enough, a SWAT team enter a building and (without the use of an elevator) must navigate their way up to the top floor to bring down a powerful but mediocre drug lord. Praised for its gritty no holds barred fight sequences, and perfectly timed action it was nothing short of a hit.
Part 2 follows practically from where the last ended, Rama is hurried away to a secluded location and given the rundown explaining that all his efforts were for nothing, but that he still has a big part to play. Although he doesn’t have much of a choice in the matter.
The-Raid-2-Gareth-Evans
To keep his family safe he has to get close to the arrogant son of a mob boss, Ucok (Arifin Putra), and to do this must infiltrate a prison by committing a high profile crime that will get him noticed by the mafia top brass. What is only supposed to be a few months turns into a couple of years, giving Rama more than enough time to get right under the skin of Ucok.
The storyline isn’t anything unique with shades of Infernal Affairs about it, police corruption, undercover cops and feuding mafia families probably seem all too familiar but director Gareth Evans lays it out in such a way that the similarities end right there.
The story delves deeper into several subplots all of which trail off on their own, but they don’t hamper the overall narrative or confuse things in a way which will make the film harder to follow and at an ass numbing 150 minutes that might be easier said than done.
Then there is the inclusion of three of the badest characters you’re ever likely to see. Hammer Girl, whose special moves entail ripping people in two with claw hammers, Baseball Bat Man, you can probably guess his unique ability and then The Assassin, who armed with a pair of kerambits’ is a silent but very much a deadly force.
There’s returning actor Yayan Ruhian who played Mad Dog in the first film but who has reappeared here as an ass-kicking hobo aiding one of the families, but ends up in the crosshairs of an instigated war were blood hasn’t been spilt in over ten years.
Evans cuts from the action with dramatic undertones, of which the performances are very good, its the gratuitous violence that Raid fans will have shelled out their money for. It’s wince-inducing on another level, whether it’s getting an arm snapped in half, a pelvis dislocated or a hammer ripped through someone’s cheek you’ll probably find yourself twisting and turning in your seat.
the-raid-2-berandal-26
The choreography is mesmerising as Evans interlocks a Godfather-like tale with action that doesn’t give you enough time to look away from the screen. From a mass prison yard scrap, an epic car chase where back seat driving takes on a whole different meaning and a jaw-dropping kitchen fight finale, it’s a film that will live long in the action memory.
Leaving the confines of a tower block behind the action and story run riot through lush green marshes, back streets and bars to city streets. The editing is short and sharp like a punch to the head, moving gracefully enough that it doesn’t judder the explosive action or disjoint the scenes of real drama.
It’s thoroughly entertaining which has justified all the hype beforehand, wonderfully shot and exhilarating throughout Evans will have his work cut out to make sure that The Raid 3 caps an action trilogy masterclass.
The follow up to The Raid packs an even harder punch, with our hero Rama (Iko Uwais) sent undercover to bring down a crime family and uncover yet more police corruption.
The first film was simplistic enough, a SWAT team enter a building and (without the use of an elevator) must navigate their way up to the top floor to bring down a powerful but mediocre drug lord. Praised for its gritty no holds barred fight sequences, and perfectly timed action it was nothing short of a hit.
Part 2 follows practically from where the last ended, Rama is hurried away to a secluded location and given the rundown explaining that all his efforts were for nothing, but that he still has a big part to play. Although he doesn’t have much of a choice in the matter.
The-Raid-2-Gareth-Evans
To keep his family safe he has to get close to the arrogant son of a mob boss, Ucok (Arifin Putra), and to do this must infiltrate a prison by committing a high profile crime that will get him noticed by the mafia top brass. What is only supposed to be a few months turns into a couple of years, giving Rama more than enough time to get right under the skin of Ucok.
The storyline isn’t anything unique with shades of Infernal Affairs about it, police corruption, undercover cops and feuding mafia families probably seem all too familiar but director Gareth Evans lays it out in such a way that the similarities end right there.
The story delves deeper into several subplots all of which trail off on their own, but they don’t hamper the overall narrative or confuse things in a way which will make the film harder to follow and at an ass numbing 150 minutes that might be easier said than done.
Then there is the inclusion of three of the badest characters you’re ever likely to see. Hammer Girl, whose special moves entail ripping people in two with claw hammers, Baseball Bat Man, you can probably guess his unique ability and then The Assassin, who armed with a pair of kerambits’ is a silent but very much a deadly force.
There’s returning actor Yayan Ruhian who played Mad Dog in the first film but who has reappeared here as an ass-kicking hobo aiding one of the families, but ends up in the crosshairs of an instigated war were blood hasn’t been spilt in over ten years.
Evans cuts from the action with dramatic undertones, of which the performances are very good, its the gratuitous violence that Raid fans will have shelled out their money for. It’s wince-inducing on another level, whether it’s getting an arm snapped in half, a pelvis dislocated or a hammer ripped through someone’s cheek you’ll probably find yourself twisting and turning in your seat.
the-raid-2-berandal-26
The choreography is mesmerising as Evans interlocks a Godfather-like tale with action that doesn’t give you enough time to look away from the screen. From a mass prison yard scrap, an epic car chase where back seat driving takes on a whole different meaning and a jaw-dropping kitchen fight finale, it’s a film that will live long in the action memory.
Leaving the confines of a tower block behind the action and story run riot through lush green marshes, back streets and bars to city streets. The editing is short and sharp like a punch to the head, moving gracefully enough that it doesn’t judder the explosive action or disjoint the scenes of real drama.
It’s thoroughly entertaining which has justified all the hype beforehand, wonderfully shot and exhilarating throughout Evans will have his work cut out to make sure that The Raid 3 caps an action trilogy masterclass.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I have put off writing this review because I honestly didn't know what, or more precisely how to sum up my feelings about this movie. That's not a typo at the top. I'm giving this one star, and honestly I nearly didn't even give it that.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On Chesil Beach (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Flawed but moving tale of a bygone sexual era.
As you might notice from my lack of recent posts, the day job is getting in a way a bit at the moment. But one film I wanted to catch was this adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel. What’s both an advantage and a disadvantage of catching a film late is that you can’t help avoid absorbing some of the reviews of others: Kevin Maher of the Times gave this a rather sniffy two stars; Amy from “Oh That Film Blog” was much more measured (an excellent review: man, that girl can write!). Last night, I actually ended up enjoying the film much more than I was expecting to.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Big Trail (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“The Indians are my friends…” Breck Coleman – John Wayne
Not exactly a statement that would exemplify the Career of a man rightly or wrongly associated as being the Cowboy of the Cowboy and Indian movies. But there is no doubt that John Wayne was certainly one of the biggest western stars of cinema.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!