Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
It seems of late that every month Hollywood either releases or plans to release a remake of a classic film. This summer has spawned no less than 5 remakes of classic films or televisions shows and with box office receipts in decline, it would seem that the public is craving for something fresh.
Thankfully the Tim Burton remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is not only a winner, but injects a much needed jolt of camp, charm, and wit into a late summer season that desperately needed it.
The film stars Johnny Depp as the mysterious candy maker Willie Wonka. Wonka has become a reclusive for two decades in order to protect his secret recipes from corporate spies and thieves.
As the film opens, a young boy named Charlie Bucket, (Freddie Highmore), returns home to his family shack, which he shares with his parents and four grandparents. As told via narration, that despite the poverty of his family, Charlie is a very lucky boy. Over their meager dinner of cabbage soup, Charlie’s grandfather (David Kelly) regales the family with tales of Willie Wonka and his exploits which he saw first hand while working in the factory decades earlier.
When Wonka resumed candy shipments after a hiatus the world was delighted, but many wondered who was making the candy as aside from shipping trucks, nobody was ever seen coming or going from the factory.
Such secrecy only added to the legend of Wonka as amazing candy creations continued to arrive in shops to the delight of customer’s world wide.
When it is announced that five golden tickets have been hidden inside candy bars world wide, and that the winners will be given a full day tour of the factory by Wonka himself, frenzy erupts across the globe as Wonka Bars are snatched up by a rabid public. Charlie dreams of getting one of the precious tickets, but his family’s meager income limits him to one bar a year on his birthday. Undaunted Charlie counts the days until his coming birthday, undaunted by the discovery of tickets around the globe.
When his efforts to get a ticket are daunted, and the fifth ticket is reported to be found, Charlie consoles himself by finding money in the street and purchases a Wonka Bar from the corner store. In the blink of an eye Charlie finds himself holding the last ticket when he learns that the last one reported found was a hoax.
Soon Charlie and his Grandfather are touring the magical factory complete with rivers of chocolate and edible candy forests in the company of the quirky Wonka and the fellow contest winners. What follows next is not going to be much of a surprise for those who have seen the 1971 version starring Gene Wilder or those who have read the novel by Roald Dahl, what is a surprise is how fresh and spirited this new version is. I was utterly charmed by the story and the effective pacing of the film.
Burton is a master of mixing visuals and fantasy and this time he not only excels, but he adds an effective touch of humanity to the fantasy which keeps the film from being lost in a see of color and effects.
Depp is brilliant as the eccentric Wonka as his mirth and camp, is underscored by equal amounts of fear and mistrust. The film is essentially a morality tale, but it never losses its focus or the charm by becoming preachy or drawn out. In a role that could easily have been mishandled, Depp soars and shows that he is one of the greatest actors of our generation.
Parents should note that there are a few moments in the film that may be a bit intense for the youngest of viewers, but that being said, the film is a true delight full of magic and fantasy that will delight young and old.
Thankfully the Tim Burton remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is not only a winner, but injects a much needed jolt of camp, charm, and wit into a late summer season that desperately needed it.
The film stars Johnny Depp as the mysterious candy maker Willie Wonka. Wonka has become a reclusive for two decades in order to protect his secret recipes from corporate spies and thieves.
As the film opens, a young boy named Charlie Bucket, (Freddie Highmore), returns home to his family shack, which he shares with his parents and four grandparents. As told via narration, that despite the poverty of his family, Charlie is a very lucky boy. Over their meager dinner of cabbage soup, Charlie’s grandfather (David Kelly) regales the family with tales of Willie Wonka and his exploits which he saw first hand while working in the factory decades earlier.
When Wonka resumed candy shipments after a hiatus the world was delighted, but many wondered who was making the candy as aside from shipping trucks, nobody was ever seen coming or going from the factory.
Such secrecy only added to the legend of Wonka as amazing candy creations continued to arrive in shops to the delight of customer’s world wide.
When it is announced that five golden tickets have been hidden inside candy bars world wide, and that the winners will be given a full day tour of the factory by Wonka himself, frenzy erupts across the globe as Wonka Bars are snatched up by a rabid public. Charlie dreams of getting one of the precious tickets, but his family’s meager income limits him to one bar a year on his birthday. Undaunted Charlie counts the days until his coming birthday, undaunted by the discovery of tickets around the globe.
When his efforts to get a ticket are daunted, and the fifth ticket is reported to be found, Charlie consoles himself by finding money in the street and purchases a Wonka Bar from the corner store. In the blink of an eye Charlie finds himself holding the last ticket when he learns that the last one reported found was a hoax.
Soon Charlie and his Grandfather are touring the magical factory complete with rivers of chocolate and edible candy forests in the company of the quirky Wonka and the fellow contest winners. What follows next is not going to be much of a surprise for those who have seen the 1971 version starring Gene Wilder or those who have read the novel by Roald Dahl, what is a surprise is how fresh and spirited this new version is. I was utterly charmed by the story and the effective pacing of the film.
Burton is a master of mixing visuals and fantasy and this time he not only excels, but he adds an effective touch of humanity to the fantasy which keeps the film from being lost in a see of color and effects.
Depp is brilliant as the eccentric Wonka as his mirth and camp, is underscored by equal amounts of fear and mistrust. The film is essentially a morality tale, but it never losses its focus or the charm by becoming preachy or drawn out. In a role that could easily have been mishandled, Depp soars and shows that he is one of the greatest actors of our generation.
Parents should note that there are a few moments in the film that may be a bit intense for the youngest of viewers, but that being said, the film is a true delight full of magic and fantasy that will delight young and old.
eBook: The Art of War
Book and Education
App
Enjoy reading The Art of War ebook with auto-scrolling, day and night viewing modes, bookmarks,...
Infected by Scott Sigler
Podcast
Across America a mysterious disease is turning ordinary people into raving, paranoid murderers who...
Starbase Orion
Games
App
"The best 4X game currently available for mobile" - PocketTactics.com "This one is geek heaven" -...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Mar 28, 2021
Strong Ensemble Work
The good thing about my yearly exercise to check out all of the Oscar Nominated films in the "Major" Categories is that it forces me to watch films that are "one my list" but I just haven't gotten to them. THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is one of those types of films - an Aaron Sorkin Written and Directed project with a stellar cast about an important moment in United States History.
And...I'm glad I "forced myself" to watch this, for TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 just might end up being my favorite film of 2020. It tells the tale of the trial of 8 (not 7 - they explain that difference in the film) leaders of revolutionary groups in the turbulent times that were the late 1960's in the United States and this film grasps the stakes that both sides are faced with in this historic time.
It all starts, of course, with the Writing and Directing of Aaron Sorkin (TV's THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, MOLLY'S GAME) and it is some of his best work. Sorkin's writing style lends itself to this type of multi-player, multi-storyline story that all culminates into one story at the end. The words coming out of his character's mouths are insightful and true (if a bit over-blown for these characters) and they make you understand these characters - and their motivations - very well (whether the character is considered a "good" guy or a "bad" guy in this film).
The pedigree of Sorkin draws some wonderful actors to his works and THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is no different. Eddie Redmayne (Oscar Winner for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING), Mark Rylance (Oscar Winner for BRIDGE OF SPIES), Ben Shenkman (Angels in America) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (INCEPTION) all are at the top of their (considerably strong) games and Director/Writer Sorkin lets them all shine.
These 4 are good - but the next 6 are even better (yes...there is that many good to great performances in this film). Let's start with Jeremy Strong's (THE BIG SHORT) Jerry Rubin and Sacha Baron Cohen (BORAT) in his Oscar Nominated role of Abbie Hoffman. The embody the hippie culture of the '60's and bring gravitas and humor to the proceedings. Cohen earns his Oscar nomination by his "showey" role, but I would have been happy with just about any of the main Actor's being nominated.
Yahya Adbul-Mateen II (AQUAMAN) is powerful as Bobby Seale - the Black Panther Leader who is railroaded into this trial. He is supported by his friend, Fred Hampton - who I was glad to have learned more about in another Oscar nominated film this year, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH.
Special notice needs to be made of a few veteran performers in this film - John Carrol Lynch (FARGO) has become a "mark of excellence" for me in films. Whenever he shows up in a project, I know that it will be worth my while for no other reason than his performance, and this film is no exception and Frank Langella EXCELS in the role of the Judge in the case, Julius Hoffman, and he is - beyond a doubt - the "bad guy" in this film, but he brings a humanity to his character and I "loved to hate" him. This performance stuck with me and I think that Langella deserved an Oscar nomination.
Finally...there is an extended cameo from a well known Hollywood performer (who I will not name, for I do not wish to spoil his appearance) as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This character was built up prior to his appearance as a powerhouse, and this actor did not disappoint.
This is a fantastic ensemble film that really transported me back to the '60's and the message at the heart of this film are as relevant today as back then. As I stated above, this is currently my favorite film of 2020, and it will only be replaced at the top by something very, very special
TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is currently streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend that you check it out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I'm glad I "forced myself" to watch this, for TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 just might end up being my favorite film of 2020. It tells the tale of the trial of 8 (not 7 - they explain that difference in the film) leaders of revolutionary groups in the turbulent times that were the late 1960's in the United States and this film grasps the stakes that both sides are faced with in this historic time.
It all starts, of course, with the Writing and Directing of Aaron Sorkin (TV's THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, MOLLY'S GAME) and it is some of his best work. Sorkin's writing style lends itself to this type of multi-player, multi-storyline story that all culminates into one story at the end. The words coming out of his character's mouths are insightful and true (if a bit over-blown for these characters) and they make you understand these characters - and their motivations - very well (whether the character is considered a "good" guy or a "bad" guy in this film).
The pedigree of Sorkin draws some wonderful actors to his works and THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is no different. Eddie Redmayne (Oscar Winner for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING), Mark Rylance (Oscar Winner for BRIDGE OF SPIES), Ben Shenkman (Angels in America) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (INCEPTION) all are at the top of their (considerably strong) games and Director/Writer Sorkin lets them all shine.
These 4 are good - but the next 6 are even better (yes...there is that many good to great performances in this film). Let's start with Jeremy Strong's (THE BIG SHORT) Jerry Rubin and Sacha Baron Cohen (BORAT) in his Oscar Nominated role of Abbie Hoffman. The embody the hippie culture of the '60's and bring gravitas and humor to the proceedings. Cohen earns his Oscar nomination by his "showey" role, but I would have been happy with just about any of the main Actor's being nominated.
Yahya Adbul-Mateen II (AQUAMAN) is powerful as Bobby Seale - the Black Panther Leader who is railroaded into this trial. He is supported by his friend, Fred Hampton - who I was glad to have learned more about in another Oscar nominated film this year, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH.
Special notice needs to be made of a few veteran performers in this film - John Carrol Lynch (FARGO) has become a "mark of excellence" for me in films. Whenever he shows up in a project, I know that it will be worth my while for no other reason than his performance, and this film is no exception and Frank Langella EXCELS in the role of the Judge in the case, Julius Hoffman, and he is - beyond a doubt - the "bad guy" in this film, but he brings a humanity to his character and I "loved to hate" him. This performance stuck with me and I think that Langella deserved an Oscar nomination.
Finally...there is an extended cameo from a well known Hollywood performer (who I will not name, for I do not wish to spoil his appearance) as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This character was built up prior to his appearance as a powerhouse, and this actor did not disappoint.
This is a fantastic ensemble film that really transported me back to the '60's and the message at the heart of this film are as relevant today as back then. As I stated above, this is currently my favorite film of 2020, and it will only be replaced at the top by something very, very special
TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is currently streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend that you check it out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Twilight Struggle
7.7
Rate It
Tabletop Game
"Now the trumpet summons us again, not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to...
Boardgames 2playergames PoliticalGames HistoricalGames
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Under the Silver Lake (2018) in Movies
Jul 6, 2019
In David Robert Mitchell’s (It Follows) Under the Silver Lake, Andrew Garfield portrays a jobless and lethargic young man named Sam. Apart from his obsession with conspiracy theories and finding obscure messages in common pop culture, Sam typically spies on his topless and bird-loving neighbor. He also blatantly ignores the fact that he’s facing eviction in five days for unpaid rent. His current infatuation is a zine entitled Under the Silver Lake, which seems to mirror what’s currently transpiring in Los Angeles. Sam develops a crush on his new neighbor named Sarah (Riley Keough), who seems to disappear without a trace overnight. What begins as an investigation into Sarah’s current whereabouts evolves into something deeply rooted in the peculiar.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
There’s a lot to digest with Under the Silver Lake. Not only is the story constructed on finding clues and deciphering the bizarre, but the film itself is also loaded with homage to famous music, film, and people. Nirvana, The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo Power, and Spider-Man are just a few references in the film and that doesn’t cover the blatant influence of films such as Rear Window or 2001: A Space Odyssey. What you have to ask yourself, and this is probably what makes the film so polarizing, is if what lays between the admiration for popular culture a worthwhile experience?
What you can appreciate is Andrew Garfield’s performance. Sam is so bored with his uneventful existence that he tries to find hidden meaning in everyday items. He is basically a stalker fueled by paranoia and consistent lusting of whatever woman is closest to him. When sex isn’t an option for Sam, he masturbates and somehow this becomes a common theme of the film. The first thing you ever pleasured yourself to is suddenly a conversation piece. Garfield has an unusual demeanor as Sam, but never really comes off as creepy. The method in which the story keeps snowballing into something bigger with more and more connections helps Sam’s case. Sam beats the snot out of a kid who keyed a giant penis ejaculating onto the hood of his black GT Mustang and you only seem to like him more because of it.
The fact of the matter is you also become invested in Sam’s discoveries. Despite what you feel about Under the Silver Lake as a film, it’s still unpredictable and intriguing even with its 139-minute duration. With its abrupt camera movements, a kamikaze squirrel, a serial dog killer on the loose, pets named after soda, the discovery of saltines and orange juice being one of the most unique combinations ever, a gory dream sequence, animated zine stories, people barking like dogs, the map on the back of a cereal box being the answer to everything, a seething hatred for the homeless, a way too impressive piano medley, and an almost unrecognizable Topher Grace as a reliable friend, Under the Silver Lake feels like it is overloaded with these overwhelmingly precise details that don’t necessarily lead to anything substantial.
On first watch, it’s impossible to decipher if Under the Silver Lake is destined to be a cult classic or a misguided neo-noir mystery. David Robert Mitchell knows how to introduce elements of comedy, mystery, and drama, but that final product is what leaves you scratching your head. Maybe this gets better with multiple viewings and you find more Easter eggs with each watch or everything connects differently in your head after knowing what direction the story is headed in. In the meantime though, Under the Silver Lake mostly feels like a nearly two and a half hour session of stoner ramblings that can’t decide whether to be Brick, Inherent Vice, or Southland Tales; even The Homeless King feels like a side story lifted from Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King.
What’s happening directly in Sam’s world isn’t what matters most in Under the Silver Lake. He’s more worried about Sarah and Los Angeles than he is about not having a job or possibly a place to live in a matter of days. The outside world is far more interesting to Sam because it’s that, “The grass is always greener,” kind of mentality. Sam is consumed by Sarah because she is the one woman in the film he doesn’t get to sleep with. Having everlasting discussions of what your topless neighbor’s parrot is saying is far more humorous than revealing anything remotely personal. Becoming entangled in this crazy spider’s web of a conspiracy is far more interesting than living a boring existence. Sam makes the most out of nothing, literally. Under the Silver Lake is this spellbinding enigma of a film that is equally stimulating as it is mystifying.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A war vehicle running low on fuel.
The words “Christopher Nolan” and “disappointment” are not words I would naturally associate… but for me, they apply where “Dunkirk” is concerned.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Dec 20, 2019
I have very mixed feelings following The Rise of Skywalker, the concluding chapter of not just another trilogy of Star Wars movies but also the conclusion of the Skywalker saga. Starting this trilogy, I was comforted by the familiarity presented in The Force Awakens and I felt that movie got the balance right between it's handling of the past and the introduction of new characters, scenarios and threats. But, I’m one of those people that was ultimately disappointed by The Last Jedi. Not the kind that fanboy rages about Star Wars and my entire childhood being ruined, as there are actually a lot of things I liked about it, but I do feel it deviated too much from some of the direction introduced in the previous movie and the movies prior to that. So I went into The Rise of Skywalker not quite as excited as I've been previously, but still cautiously optimistic following a trailer which managed to give me goosebumps pretty much every time I saw it.
As a final chapter, The Rise of Skywalker has a lot resting on it's shoulders. Concluding, and wrapping things up, while not completely ignoring the ideas put forth in The Last Jedi, JJ Abrams is however clearly more interested in revisiting some of his own ideas from The Force Awakens. But I felt that maybe he was relying a little too much on that familiarity aspect at times, as he tries to please everyone.
In The Rise of Skywalker, the resistance are still outnumbered by the First Order and Kylo Ren is now Supreme Leader. Meanwhile, Rey is training with Leia, becoming more confident and powerful, while Finn, Poe and Chewie are out in the Millennium Falcon gathering intel from spies. But an old threat from the past has returned, as a message goes out across the galaxy from an unknown region - Emperor Palpatine is warning of revenge, supported by a powerful fleet of ships.
To go into much more detail would involve spoilers, but lets just say that the first half of the movie involves a search to find something which is going to help them find something else, which is going to lead to the location of the emperor. The quest takes us from location to location, with the odd rescue along the way and the occasional new character popping up. Rey and Ren still have a bond which means that they can manipulate and battle each other from anywhere in the galaxy as Ren and his knights seek out Rey and her team in order to destroy them. There's a lot going on in that first half, and it all felt a bit messy. It's fair to say, I was very bored by this first half.
Around that half way mark though, the journey takes us to a world in the Endor system, where the remains of the second Death Star lies out at sea, among towering waves. It's there that an epic battle between Rey and Ren takes place, which you no doubt will have seen snippets of in the trailers or marketing material. Waves crash around them and the visuals, the choreography, the score, it all came together and really kick started the second half off for me. I still can't quite put my finger on it, but from that point on I felt a real shift (in the force?) and I began to really enjoy the rest of the movie, right up until the huge, inevitable and breathtaking final battle.
As mentioned earlier, there are certainly a lot of characters to take care of in this movie, including plenty of newcomers, all fighting for attention and screen-time. Some of the seemingly important characters introduced to us previously in this trilogy feel a bit lost at times, while we do still manage to find time for a very welcome return by Landon Calrissian. Rey and Ren are both outstanding once again and a special mention goes out to Richard E Grant, who I thought was brilliant as head of the First Order fleet, Allegiant General Pride. Scenes involving Carrie Fisher are beautifully handled, but I felt that the fan service went a little bit too far with some of the scenes involving Luke Skywalker.
The level of craftsmanship and design that goes into a Star Wars movie is always incredible and The Rise of Skywalker is no exception, elevated by a powerful John Williams score and some amazing visuals. I'm really not sure what I was expecting from this final chapter but, despite it all coming good for me in the end, I do feel slightly disappointed overall by the wildly differing halves of the movie. Still, there's nothing quite like seeing a new Star Wars movie on the big screen at Christmas time!
As a final chapter, The Rise of Skywalker has a lot resting on it's shoulders. Concluding, and wrapping things up, while not completely ignoring the ideas put forth in The Last Jedi, JJ Abrams is however clearly more interested in revisiting some of his own ideas from The Force Awakens. But I felt that maybe he was relying a little too much on that familiarity aspect at times, as he tries to please everyone.
In The Rise of Skywalker, the resistance are still outnumbered by the First Order and Kylo Ren is now Supreme Leader. Meanwhile, Rey is training with Leia, becoming more confident and powerful, while Finn, Poe and Chewie are out in the Millennium Falcon gathering intel from spies. But an old threat from the past has returned, as a message goes out across the galaxy from an unknown region - Emperor Palpatine is warning of revenge, supported by a powerful fleet of ships.
To go into much more detail would involve spoilers, but lets just say that the first half of the movie involves a search to find something which is going to help them find something else, which is going to lead to the location of the emperor. The quest takes us from location to location, with the odd rescue along the way and the occasional new character popping up. Rey and Ren still have a bond which means that they can manipulate and battle each other from anywhere in the galaxy as Ren and his knights seek out Rey and her team in order to destroy them. There's a lot going on in that first half, and it all felt a bit messy. It's fair to say, I was very bored by this first half.
Around that half way mark though, the journey takes us to a world in the Endor system, where the remains of the second Death Star lies out at sea, among towering waves. It's there that an epic battle between Rey and Ren takes place, which you no doubt will have seen snippets of in the trailers or marketing material. Waves crash around them and the visuals, the choreography, the score, it all came together and really kick started the second half off for me. I still can't quite put my finger on it, but from that point on I felt a real shift (in the force?) and I began to really enjoy the rest of the movie, right up until the huge, inevitable and breathtaking final battle.
As mentioned earlier, there are certainly a lot of characters to take care of in this movie, including plenty of newcomers, all fighting for attention and screen-time. Some of the seemingly important characters introduced to us previously in this trilogy feel a bit lost at times, while we do still manage to find time for a very welcome return by Landon Calrissian. Rey and Ren are both outstanding once again and a special mention goes out to Richard E Grant, who I thought was brilliant as head of the First Order fleet, Allegiant General Pride. Scenes involving Carrie Fisher are beautifully handled, but I felt that the fan service went a little bit too far with some of the scenes involving Luke Skywalker.
The level of craftsmanship and design that goes into a Star Wars movie is always incredible and The Rise of Skywalker is no exception, elevated by a powerful John Williams score and some amazing visuals. I'm really not sure what I was expecting from this final chapter but, despite it all coming good for me in the end, I do feel slightly disappointed overall by the wildly differing halves of the movie. Still, there's nothing quite like seeing a new Star Wars movie on the big screen at Christmas time!