Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Tom and Jerry (2021) in Movies
Mar 11, 2021 (Updated Mar 27, 2021)
The animation looks nice (2 more)
Decent laughs
Gets the Tom and Jerry part of the movie right
Too predictable (2 more)
Bad plot
Barely above average movie overall
Visually Pleasing With Decent Laughs Sprinkled Throughout
Tom and Jerry is a 2021 live-action/CGI animated comedy movie directed by Tim Story and written by Kevin Costello. The film was produced by Chris DeFaria and Warner Animation Group, The Story Company, and Turner Entertainment Co. and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. The movie stars Chloe Grace Moretz, Michael Pena, Colin Jost, Robe Delaney and Ken Jeong.
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Kayla Forester (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a street smart woman doing odd jobs in Manhattan when she bumps into Tom while he's chasing Jerry in Central Park. Jerry, who picked a fight with Tom during a impromptu piano performance is also house hunting and in search of a new home. Kayla, is fortuitous when she goes to the Royal Gate Hotel for a "free" breakfast and presents a stolen resume as her own. She's given a position with helping event manager Terence Mendoza (Michael Pena) with a high profile wedding the very day that Jerry takes up residence in the hotel. Tom and Jerry's usual shenanigans ensue when Kayla hires Tom to "exterminate" him when Jerry begins stealing food and items causing concern about Ben (Colin Jost) and Preeta's (Pallavi Sharda) wedding and for the hotel's reputation to Mr. Dubros (Rob Delaney) the hotel's owner and general manager.
This was a movie that I watched on a whim and didn't have any expectations going into other than the animation looking really nice in the trailer when I first saw it. Also trying to get into the groove of getting back on doing my reviews on the regular again. I'm also a fan of both Chloe Grace Moretz from the Kick-Ass movies and Michael Pena from just about everything he comes out in. Plus I've always been a fan of Tom and Jerry, watching the cartoons as a kid was always fun and it's something that I can still enjoy anytime even though it's something that is really old. But enough of that and let's get to what I thought about the movie. I liked how the movie setup the Tom and Jerry character's similar to how it would in an episode. It showed both of them individually with their own goals before bringing them together. Tom is shown to have aspirations of becoming an accomplished pianist and Jerry is shown house hunting and looking for a new home to live in. That's when Jerry finds Tom pulling a scam in Central Park conning people as a "blind" piano player. Jerry tries to "cash in" on Tom's scheme and begins trying to get in on the action and adding himself and a little flair to the performance. That's when their usual antics ruin the opportunity for both of them. This was a pretty decent opening and I really liked how their animation looked and how the live-action aspect interacted with them, it was very visually pleasing. I really didn't like how it seemed Jerry was the agitator between the two or at least the one who starts the "rivalry" in this movie but I think I've always looked at him through rose colored glasses if you will since he is the smaller and more vulnerable of the two. The comedic antics were very spot on emulating a lot of classic moments from the cartoon with most not all working fairly well in a "real-world" setting. I think where this movie lost me the most was not the backdrop of the New York City being the setting or even the live-action part and actors like Chloe Grace Moretz and Michael Pena but the whole wedding plot being a primary focus of the film. I mean I can totally see it as a catalyst to the whole plot but for it to be the main focus didn't really thrill me. I thought the acting was decent and comedy was good but this movie didn't really strike me as a super funny movie, though it did have me laughing out loud at a couple of parts. I was happy that they also added Spike and the pretty white cat whose name is Toots which are regulars in the cartoon and a host of other cats as part of the alley cat gang who many of which looked familiar. The music soundtrack was good too and had a bunch of popular artists from music of today which didn't really go with the whole "vibe" of Tom and Jerry but didn't take a way from the movie either. Droopy the dog's cameo was also a nice added touch. All-in-all this movie was barely above average for me and I think that's me mainly having nostalgia for the characters and what the show used to be. Definitely not something I would see at theaters but if you have HBO Max you should give it a shot. I give this movie a 6/10.
-------------------------------------------------------
Spoiler Section Review:
So I gave this movie a 6/10 which for me is above average but this movie barely met that criteria. It started off pretty good and funny with Jerry looking for a new place to live and dealing with a dodgy real estate rat. It was also cool to see Tom having dreams or aspirations of becoming a pianist and then seeing how they collide when Jerry tries to own in on his action on the whole blind piano player scheme. That was all classic Tom and Jerry. I also enjoyed the way they interacted with the whole live-action aspect of the film and how the people reacted to them and the environments and how that all worked out was pretty good to me in my opinion. The pigeon singing opening was also pretty funny and cool and when he sings again later in the movie was awesome. I really like Chloe Grace Moretz as Kayla Forester and thought that she did a pretty good job for acting with what was probably people wearing green screen costumes or props and Michael Pena was pretty funny as the event manager. The movie was pretty predictable except for one thing that I guess I would have known about if I bothered to see the second trailer but I never did, and that's the whole sub-plot of the wedding being such a big focus for the film. I don't have anything against weddings except for when it comes to Tv shows and how if any of them run long enough then there's going to be a wedding episode somewhere. But I really felt that it kind of took a way from the whole vibe of it being a Tom and Jerry movie. It was cool how they brought Spike and Toots into the picture by them being the pets of Ben and Preeta. It was pretty obvious when they introduced the bartend character Cameron that he would be Kayla's love interest but I'm kind of glad that they didn't lean too hard into that. I thought that it was pretty funny how Kayla made Tom and Jerry be friends and go out on the town on their own and it was kind of fun to see them get a long for a while but I knew it would never last. I also thought it was pretty messed up that Kayla let Terence take the blame for Spike, Tom and Jerry tearing up the hotel when it all started with Jerry who returned when she said Tom had taken care of him already. I could totally tell that Terence would become the villain of the movie after that but most of the movie is predictable anyways. There was surprisingly an after credits scene where Ben is charged for two different weddings by the hotel which is pretty funny too. Not a great movie by no means and definitely barely above average but if you have HBO Max you should give it a watch for nostalgia's sake especially if your an old Tom and Jerry fan. I gave it a 6/10.
https://youtu.be/nrdsTy_KpwQ
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Due to circumstances we have all lived with now for about 8 months, that scarce need a word more said about them, this has remained only the second film I have seen at a cinema in 2020, following an early January viewing of The Rise of Skywalker. And it will probably be the last film I head out to see on the big screen for a while. This, naturally, breaks my heart. It does, however, place Christopher Nolan’s complex thriller into a very peculiar and memorable place in the collective psyche of film lovers.
For many it will have been the film that brought them out of lockdown number one into a world of slight hope that normality was returning. As it co-incided with my daughter’s birthday it became part of a treat day out that although socially distanced was my first attempt to do all the things I hadn’t done for a while; eat out in a restaurant, have a pint in a bar, and then see a movie. The experience, whilst still enjoyable and memorable, was tainted by how surreal and empty the world felt – the meal was in an half empty and cold Hard Rock Cafe, with no music and a smell of disinfectant; the pint was in a pop up outside bar that only took orders via a phone app in advance; and the movie was attended by six people, of which we were two, separated by not two metres but at least ten!
I have been in some screenings that were dead quiet before, but not for a film so anticipated and more or less mainstream. It was odd. Hats off to the staff of Everyman, Glasgow, however, who were exemplary in their courtesy, welcoming and safety precautions. It wasn’t their fault it was empty, and I applaud them for keeping the ball rolling at that time around the start of September. At least the sofas were comfy, the place was warm and the smell was still of popcorn and not domestos.
I had been looking forward to the film immensely. The hype and build-up to it had come with a lot of baggage, with rumours of production delays and script issues going back a few years. It was shrouded in mystery, with even the trailer being delayed until the very last moment and critics not getting to see it until a day before release, such was the fear of spoilers leaking out. My first concern, being so excited by the prospect of another time bending classic to join Memento, Interstellar and Inception in the ranks of “OK, what just happened” masterpieces, was that the sound during the trailers was very very low – if they kept it that low during the actual film I would demand my money back… I needn’t have worried…
Never in my life have I felt as if my eardrums were about to burst whilst watching a film! Literally, at times, Hans Zimmer’s powerful and emotive score was vibrating my testicles! Add to that the fact that a lot of the dialogue seemed mumbled and drowned out by it, and it made the first 45 minutes very difficult to enjoy. Was this horrendous sound mix a mistake? Or very much part of the plan to overwhelm the senses and confuse the brain? Was it part of the puzzle or a massive technical oversight? As almost everyone seems to have the same complaint about it, the jury is still out on that one…
And so, it took a little while for me to atune to the tone, regardless of how hard you had to focus to take in anything of what was going on. There was a point where I became certain I wasn’t going to like it – I braced myself for disappointment. And then… at a certain moment in a certain scene the penny dropped and so did my jaw, as the full realisation of where this was going, and how unique and mind blowing that concept was, finally kicked in. From that moment on it just got better and better, as the technical achievement required, let alone intelligence, to pull this off surpassed all previous levels of anything I can ever remember.
The “Wow” moments just kept on coming as the action, tension and intrigue kept rising to fever pitch. In the end, so profoundly bewildering were the potential possibilities of the plot and premise that I gave up trying to meet it intellectually and just allowed it to wash over me emotionally, knowing that repeat viewings would allow me to engage with it in that way later.
John David Washington as “the protagonist” is suitably neutral and unshowy in the role; threatening to be compared to Bond or Bourne, but never quite being either, as this world, despite it’s surface glamour and underground seediness feels much closer to DiCaprio’s suit wearing mind spy in Inception than either of those. For anyone who didn’t yet catch his terrific turn in BlacKkKlansman this may be their first encounter with him, and you’d have to say he has a very solid, dependable quality, without ever being starry or attention seeking. Watchable, for sure, but never chewing the scenery at the cost of the story – and surely that is why Nolan chose him.
Beside Washington is another excellent performance by the increasingly impressive Robert Pattinson. His role as the enigmatic Neil here grows on you minute to minute during the film, and afterwards you wonder if he wasn’t the best thing about the entire production… there is a subtlety of meaning in all his scenes that is only revealed late on, and demands a further watch or two to get every nuance from. He gives the impression he is entirely in control of the full meaning of the film and his own performance, so much so he strikes me as the pivot that would tip you either way on whether you liked the film or not.
And I have to admit not liking it is a valid option. You couldn’t possibly watch it whilst tired or in a bad mood, it is just too full on, bordering on oppressive at times. There are also a few supporting roles that I’m not 100% certain of, most notably Kenneth Brannagh as the seeming villain of the piece, Sator. His accent is a distraction, and it feels like a character you’ve seen him play before – fine in most ways, but nothing special – and I found myself wishing they had cast someone else in that role. Likewise with the less exposed Elizabeth Debicki – adequate, but not transcendent, as her character might have been with a more charismatic actress.
My overall impression was definitely affected by how much my daughter enjoyed it – she loves having a mystery to solve, especially if it involves time or some other sci-fi concept. The pleasure of it was chatting it over excitedly afterwards, to see if either of us had truly understood the full story, in the same way I remember doing with others about all Nolan’s concept pieces over the years. If you come to it being less than bothered about having to unlock a puzzle box then it may very well piss you off, to the extent you either just give up or sit back and enjoy the ride. However, I would assert confidently that it is worth the effort and will reward multiple viewings over time. Especially as more clues to its meaning are discussed and revealed.
One thing that can be said with certainty is that there is no other film like this that has ever been made. It feels different and beyond comparison in many crucial ways. The ambition of Nolan has to be applauded. I only wish he would go back and sort out that sound design before I get around to seeing it again.
For many it will have been the film that brought them out of lockdown number one into a world of slight hope that normality was returning. As it co-incided with my daughter’s birthday it became part of a treat day out that although socially distanced was my first attempt to do all the things I hadn’t done for a while; eat out in a restaurant, have a pint in a bar, and then see a movie. The experience, whilst still enjoyable and memorable, was tainted by how surreal and empty the world felt – the meal was in an half empty and cold Hard Rock Cafe, with no music and a smell of disinfectant; the pint was in a pop up outside bar that only took orders via a phone app in advance; and the movie was attended by six people, of which we were two, separated by not two metres but at least ten!
I have been in some screenings that were dead quiet before, but not for a film so anticipated and more or less mainstream. It was odd. Hats off to the staff of Everyman, Glasgow, however, who were exemplary in their courtesy, welcoming and safety precautions. It wasn’t their fault it was empty, and I applaud them for keeping the ball rolling at that time around the start of September. At least the sofas were comfy, the place was warm and the smell was still of popcorn and not domestos.
I had been looking forward to the film immensely. The hype and build-up to it had come with a lot of baggage, with rumours of production delays and script issues going back a few years. It was shrouded in mystery, with even the trailer being delayed until the very last moment and critics not getting to see it until a day before release, such was the fear of spoilers leaking out. My first concern, being so excited by the prospect of another time bending classic to join Memento, Interstellar and Inception in the ranks of “OK, what just happened” masterpieces, was that the sound during the trailers was very very low – if they kept it that low during the actual film I would demand my money back… I needn’t have worried…
Never in my life have I felt as if my eardrums were about to burst whilst watching a film! Literally, at times, Hans Zimmer’s powerful and emotive score was vibrating my testicles! Add to that the fact that a lot of the dialogue seemed mumbled and drowned out by it, and it made the first 45 minutes very difficult to enjoy. Was this horrendous sound mix a mistake? Or very much part of the plan to overwhelm the senses and confuse the brain? Was it part of the puzzle or a massive technical oversight? As almost everyone seems to have the same complaint about it, the jury is still out on that one…
And so, it took a little while for me to atune to the tone, regardless of how hard you had to focus to take in anything of what was going on. There was a point where I became certain I wasn’t going to like it – I braced myself for disappointment. And then… at a certain moment in a certain scene the penny dropped and so did my jaw, as the full realisation of where this was going, and how unique and mind blowing that concept was, finally kicked in. From that moment on it just got better and better, as the technical achievement required, let alone intelligence, to pull this off surpassed all previous levels of anything I can ever remember.
The “Wow” moments just kept on coming as the action, tension and intrigue kept rising to fever pitch. In the end, so profoundly bewildering were the potential possibilities of the plot and premise that I gave up trying to meet it intellectually and just allowed it to wash over me emotionally, knowing that repeat viewings would allow me to engage with it in that way later.
John David Washington as “the protagonist” is suitably neutral and unshowy in the role; threatening to be compared to Bond or Bourne, but never quite being either, as this world, despite it’s surface glamour and underground seediness feels much closer to DiCaprio’s suit wearing mind spy in Inception than either of those. For anyone who didn’t yet catch his terrific turn in BlacKkKlansman this may be their first encounter with him, and you’d have to say he has a very solid, dependable quality, without ever being starry or attention seeking. Watchable, for sure, but never chewing the scenery at the cost of the story – and surely that is why Nolan chose him.
Beside Washington is another excellent performance by the increasingly impressive Robert Pattinson. His role as the enigmatic Neil here grows on you minute to minute during the film, and afterwards you wonder if he wasn’t the best thing about the entire production… there is a subtlety of meaning in all his scenes that is only revealed late on, and demands a further watch or two to get every nuance from. He gives the impression he is entirely in control of the full meaning of the film and his own performance, so much so he strikes me as the pivot that would tip you either way on whether you liked the film or not.
And I have to admit not liking it is a valid option. You couldn’t possibly watch it whilst tired or in a bad mood, it is just too full on, bordering on oppressive at times. There are also a few supporting roles that I’m not 100% certain of, most notably Kenneth Brannagh as the seeming villain of the piece, Sator. His accent is a distraction, and it feels like a character you’ve seen him play before – fine in most ways, but nothing special – and I found myself wishing they had cast someone else in that role. Likewise with the less exposed Elizabeth Debicki – adequate, but not transcendent, as her character might have been with a more charismatic actress.
My overall impression was definitely affected by how much my daughter enjoyed it – she loves having a mystery to solve, especially if it involves time or some other sci-fi concept. The pleasure of it was chatting it over excitedly afterwards, to see if either of us had truly understood the full story, in the same way I remember doing with others about all Nolan’s concept pieces over the years. If you come to it being less than bothered about having to unlock a puzzle box then it may very well piss you off, to the extent you either just give up or sit back and enjoy the ride. However, I would assert confidently that it is worth the effort and will reward multiple viewings over time. Especially as more clues to its meaning are discussed and revealed.
One thing that can be said with certainty is that there is no other film like this that has ever been made. It feels different and beyond comparison in many crucial ways. The ambition of Nolan has to be applauded. I only wish he would go back and sort out that sound design before I get around to seeing it again.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Neil Patrick Harris is delightfully devious. (1 more)
MacFarlane shows he has potential in his on-screen acting debut.
The humor is at times very vulgar and immature. (2 more)
The film is slow-paced and overly long.
"A Dozen Ways to Die in the West" would have been a more appropriate title.
A Million Ways to Die in the West is good for a few laughs but it feels like it goes on unreasonably long. Still, if you're a fan of MacFarlane's other works, you'll most likely enjoy his parody of the Old West.
Following the success of his directorial debut, Ted, Seth MacFarlane steps in front of the movie camera for the first time in his new film, A Million Ways to Die in the West. MacFarlane is best known as the creator of the popular animated television series, Family Guy, and he was also the host of the Oscars just two years ago. Now he’s taking the starring role in a film he wrote and directed himself. Here MacFarlane plays a cowardly sheep farmer named Albert who is miserably living in the dangerous Old West. Or rather, the not-so-dangerous Old West. Despite what the title suggests, there’s not a whole lot of dying going on in A Million Ways to Die in the West. You won’t find a whole lot of substance either, but there are a fair amount of laughs if you’re able to tolerate the crude toilet humor and dirty jokes. All in all, MacFarlane does a decent job in this comedy, but his jokes stick too close to his own conventions, and much like life on the frontier, the film can be kind of a drag.
If you’ve ever seen Family Guy, you should feel right at home with the humor in this film. It’s crass, edgy, violent, and full of pop culture references. Although, given that this is an R-rated movie, MacFarlane’s able to push the limits further than usual, and he makes sure to do that by including a lot of raunchy humor and toilet-gags. Oh, and in case you were wondering, yes, male genitals are still the hottest thing in comedy right now. As you’ve no doubt deduced, this is certainly not a film you’d want to take your kids to see. Nor is it for the easily-offended. Though in the film’s defense, it’s not entirely tasteless, and its use of vulgarity isn’t overly frequent. There’s plenty of great slapstick physical comedy and some pretty hilarious dialogue. I laughed more than I thought I would, and was never so disgusted that I wanted to walk out. It’s an entertaining film, it just happens to run a little long and lose momentum down the stretch. Plus the main premise of the film is never all that compelling to begin with.
In A Million Ways to Die in the West, MacFarlane’s character Albert is a man entirely self-aware of the time and place he’s living in, as well as the many dangers that come with it. He sheepishly lives his life, terrified by the threat of death that lurks around every corner. When his beloved girlfriend leaves him for a man with a mighty mustache, Albert has to cowboy up to prove his machismo and try to win her back. Luckily for him, he meets a gun-toting woman named Anna who’s happy to help him face his fears and show him the ropes of being a cowboy. Unfortunately however, this new friendship ends up putting Albert right into the crosshairs of Clinch Leatherwood, the deadliest outlaw around.
While MacFarlane does a respectable job in his first foray into acting, his character feels rather uninspired. I couldn’t help but see him as a hodgepodge of various Family Guy characters, having the clumsiness of Peter Griffin, the self-consciousness of Chris Griffin, and the intelligence and charm of Brian. Given that he created that show, perhaps that should be expected, but it just felt like Albert was lacking a unique and consistent identity. He’s a character who can be charming and funny, but he also comes off seeming like a jerk. All in all, the film has a good cast of actors, with Neil Patrick Harris being the stand-out of the bunch. He plays the pompous, mustached snob, Foy, who steals the heart of Albert’s girlfriend, Louise. Giovanni Ribisi and Sarah Silverman are likable as the flawed, clueless couple who serve as Albert’s close friends, Edward and Ruth. Although their characters stay pretty comfortably within the realm of what you would expect from their respective actors, with Edward being the naïve nice guy, while Silverman’s Ruth is the seemingly-sweet-and-innocent, foul-mouthed hussy. Charlize Theron does a fine job as Albert’s mentor, Anna. She has a strong presence in the film and is fun to watch, but despite her best efforts, the emotional element she brings to the story ends up feeling forced and unconvincing. Though that’s no fault of her own. It’s just hard to imagine her, or anyone, falling head over heels so easily and suddenly for a guy like Albert. Then, of course, there’s Liam Neeson, who is effective in his performance as the intimidating villain, Clinch, but would have benefitted from more screen-time.
A Million Ways to Die in the West proficiently parodies the western film genre, capturing the right atmosphere for the setting and time period. Visually it’s a pleasant film to look at, with good camera-work, well-created sets, and lots of beautiful scenery. This makes it all the more disappointing then that the filmmakers decided to place a visual filter over the entirety of the film to give it a more old-fashioned look. As a result, there is a constant flickering throughout the whole movie, and while not quite seizure-inducing, it certainly is distracting. At times you kind of get used to it and forget about it, but it really stands out in scenes with heavy lighting and most of the movie takes place in broad daylight. On the audio side of things, the music is appropriately fitting, but little of it is particularly noteworthy. There is a great song about mustaches, accompanied with a well-orchestrated dance number led by Neil Patrick Harris in what is undoubtedly one of the highlights of the film. Additionally the film’s theme song is appropriately fun. The visual effects in the movie, although limited, are done quite well and nicely add to the film’s comedic effect. Although I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say the movie could have done just fine without all of the animated urinating sheep.
I think the film’s greatest flaw is the fact that it’s doing too much as it tries to incorporate all of the main stereotypes of the western genre. It has duels, bar brawls, jailbreaks, horse chases, and even capture by Indians thrown in for good measure. In trying to cover all of the bases, the movie ends up running too long and becomes a little boring and tired. Rather than building up to a climax, the film diverges with some unnecessary scenes, and then concludes with a lackluster ending. It would have been cool to see Clinch and his group of bandits lay siege to the main town, which could have given the filmmakers an opportunity to create a wide variety of deaths, and allow Albert to exercise his newly developed skills before setting up to an ultimate final showdown. Maybe that would be adding to the long list of clichés, but at least it would have given this slow-paced film some much needed adrenaline and would have made it more true to its misleading title. There are also several cameo appearances in the film, and while a couple of them are great conceptually, I don’t think any of them are quite as satisfying as they should be. They end up feeling out of place, like last-second additions that have no purpose other than to acknowledge other films. I can appreciate the attempt but the cameos aren’t particularly funny and they just seems to emphasize how much better those other films are.
Seth MacFarlane’s A Million Ways to Die in the West is good for a few laughs, but just like his character Albert’s long-winded ramblings, it feels like it goes on unreasonably long. It’s still an entertaining film regardless, and if you’re a fan of MacFarlane’s other work, you’ll most likely enjoy his parody of the Old West. The movie has a talented cast, some truly great scenes such as a bar brawl and a memorable dance, as well as plenty of good old-fashioned slapstick, and witty dialogue. If you can handle the occasional gross-out gag, you’ll probably have a good time. Just don’t expect to actually see the many ways people can die In the Old West. The movie doesn’t show many deaths at all, and all the best ones you likely already saw in the trailer.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 6.3.14.)
If you’ve ever seen Family Guy, you should feel right at home with the humor in this film. It’s crass, edgy, violent, and full of pop culture references. Although, given that this is an R-rated movie, MacFarlane’s able to push the limits further than usual, and he makes sure to do that by including a lot of raunchy humor and toilet-gags. Oh, and in case you were wondering, yes, male genitals are still the hottest thing in comedy right now. As you’ve no doubt deduced, this is certainly not a film you’d want to take your kids to see. Nor is it for the easily-offended. Though in the film’s defense, it’s not entirely tasteless, and its use of vulgarity isn’t overly frequent. There’s plenty of great slapstick physical comedy and some pretty hilarious dialogue. I laughed more than I thought I would, and was never so disgusted that I wanted to walk out. It’s an entertaining film, it just happens to run a little long and lose momentum down the stretch. Plus the main premise of the film is never all that compelling to begin with.
In A Million Ways to Die in the West, MacFarlane’s character Albert is a man entirely self-aware of the time and place he’s living in, as well as the many dangers that come with it. He sheepishly lives his life, terrified by the threat of death that lurks around every corner. When his beloved girlfriend leaves him for a man with a mighty mustache, Albert has to cowboy up to prove his machismo and try to win her back. Luckily for him, he meets a gun-toting woman named Anna who’s happy to help him face his fears and show him the ropes of being a cowboy. Unfortunately however, this new friendship ends up putting Albert right into the crosshairs of Clinch Leatherwood, the deadliest outlaw around.
While MacFarlane does a respectable job in his first foray into acting, his character feels rather uninspired. I couldn’t help but see him as a hodgepodge of various Family Guy characters, having the clumsiness of Peter Griffin, the self-consciousness of Chris Griffin, and the intelligence and charm of Brian. Given that he created that show, perhaps that should be expected, but it just felt like Albert was lacking a unique and consistent identity. He’s a character who can be charming and funny, but he also comes off seeming like a jerk. All in all, the film has a good cast of actors, with Neil Patrick Harris being the stand-out of the bunch. He plays the pompous, mustached snob, Foy, who steals the heart of Albert’s girlfriend, Louise. Giovanni Ribisi and Sarah Silverman are likable as the flawed, clueless couple who serve as Albert’s close friends, Edward and Ruth. Although their characters stay pretty comfortably within the realm of what you would expect from their respective actors, with Edward being the naïve nice guy, while Silverman’s Ruth is the seemingly-sweet-and-innocent, foul-mouthed hussy. Charlize Theron does a fine job as Albert’s mentor, Anna. She has a strong presence in the film and is fun to watch, but despite her best efforts, the emotional element she brings to the story ends up feeling forced and unconvincing. Though that’s no fault of her own. It’s just hard to imagine her, or anyone, falling head over heels so easily and suddenly for a guy like Albert. Then, of course, there’s Liam Neeson, who is effective in his performance as the intimidating villain, Clinch, but would have benefitted from more screen-time.
A Million Ways to Die in the West proficiently parodies the western film genre, capturing the right atmosphere for the setting and time period. Visually it’s a pleasant film to look at, with good camera-work, well-created sets, and lots of beautiful scenery. This makes it all the more disappointing then that the filmmakers decided to place a visual filter over the entirety of the film to give it a more old-fashioned look. As a result, there is a constant flickering throughout the whole movie, and while not quite seizure-inducing, it certainly is distracting. At times you kind of get used to it and forget about it, but it really stands out in scenes with heavy lighting and most of the movie takes place in broad daylight. On the audio side of things, the music is appropriately fitting, but little of it is particularly noteworthy. There is a great song about mustaches, accompanied with a well-orchestrated dance number led by Neil Patrick Harris in what is undoubtedly one of the highlights of the film. Additionally the film’s theme song is appropriately fun. The visual effects in the movie, although limited, are done quite well and nicely add to the film’s comedic effect. Although I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say the movie could have done just fine without all of the animated urinating sheep.
I think the film’s greatest flaw is the fact that it’s doing too much as it tries to incorporate all of the main stereotypes of the western genre. It has duels, bar brawls, jailbreaks, horse chases, and even capture by Indians thrown in for good measure. In trying to cover all of the bases, the movie ends up running too long and becomes a little boring and tired. Rather than building up to a climax, the film diverges with some unnecessary scenes, and then concludes with a lackluster ending. It would have been cool to see Clinch and his group of bandits lay siege to the main town, which could have given the filmmakers an opportunity to create a wide variety of deaths, and allow Albert to exercise his newly developed skills before setting up to an ultimate final showdown. Maybe that would be adding to the long list of clichés, but at least it would have given this slow-paced film some much needed adrenaline and would have made it more true to its misleading title. There are also several cameo appearances in the film, and while a couple of them are great conceptually, I don’t think any of them are quite as satisfying as they should be. They end up feeling out of place, like last-second additions that have no purpose other than to acknowledge other films. I can appreciate the attempt but the cameos aren’t particularly funny and they just seems to emphasize how much better those other films are.
Seth MacFarlane’s A Million Ways to Die in the West is good for a few laughs, but just like his character Albert’s long-winded ramblings, it feels like it goes on unreasonably long. It’s still an entertaining film regardless, and if you’re a fan of MacFarlane’s other work, you’ll most likely enjoy his parody of the Old West. The movie has a talented cast, some truly great scenes such as a bar brawl and a memorable dance, as well as plenty of good old-fashioned slapstick, and witty dialogue. If you can handle the occasional gross-out gag, you’ll probably have a good time. Just don’t expect to actually see the many ways people can die In the Old West. The movie doesn’t show many deaths at all, and all the best ones you likely already saw in the trailer.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 6.3.14.)
I tried to avoid much about this before seeing it and despite the internet being what it is I somehow managed to avoid spoilers.
Harley is fresh off a breakup and she's looking for something to help her bounce back. When she finds the perfect way it's liberating, she's a whole new woman... she's also the managed to declare open season on herself. The who's who of Gotham villainy are looking for revenge and there's no one to protect her.
In the inevitable chaos she leaves in her wake she comes across a group of ladies who are all in need of some new friends.
I went in expecting something with a bit of sass, that's all I really had in mind before seeing it, violence and sass. It certainly didn't disappoint on that level. But there was some confusion for me because there was a lot of film without actually feeling we were into the meat of the story... or what I had assumed was the main point of the film. That fact left me pondering about whether this should have had a different title.
The opening was a particular surprise, it was so different and it really worked. It provided a quick recap on what we'd missed between previous offerings and did it in such a fun way. I loved the animation style and it had some nods of nostalgia in there too.
Being the villain with a touch of hero puts Harley on a level with other characters and films, there are many little flashes throughout that remind me of Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Even with those nods it definitely takes on its own twist. There's no denying that Harley is a great character, and Robbie plays her fantastically, but she's been done wrong by being given a film without the proper credit of it... Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn... As I said above, perhaps this name was misplaced. Giving the Birds Of Prey headline billing makes you think you're getting something very different. Traditionally you would go from existing content to new... here's Harley and introducing Birds Of Prey... but while the story does that the title does the complete opposite. I don't know why they wouldn't just have given the honour to Harley instead of a rather fanciful footnote of a subtitle.
Harley has some great moments in this film, the emotion on her face when she works out how to get closure and then this...
[sadly no amazing gif in this review, you can see it on my blog, link below]
I can see the whole thing as being within her personality, but somehow not the end of the film, that's the bit that didn't feel right to me.
The whole film feels like a set up for an actual Birds Of Prey film, but I'm not sure any of the characters really got their due. Renee Montoya was originally a character made for Batman's part of Gotham, not Harley's, she was affected by the corruption of the Police Department and her story feels like it was much more serious and dark there than it was here. Black Canary, again, doesn't seem to live up to existing backstory, though her caring nature in this is a welcome addition and she probably does the best out of the story. Huntress' story is a general amalgam of existing things, but she doesn't develop much, the fact that she's "new" to this lifestyle is played on a lot and her inexperience is used for humour most of the time. Cassandra Cain is probably the worst pickpocket in Gotham and yet somehow manages to steal a lot of stuff, what's more frustrating here is that the name holds a lot of weight in the DCEU but not in this film.
There are a lot of "main" characters and that doesn't help matters, but when they interact they all work quite well together. I don't think it would have hurt to have Montoya there in a lesser capacity, and the same goes for Cain. Neither character in this incarnation do a lot, though Cain physically has an important part to play.
Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis/Black Mask. From the trailer I was keen to see what McGregor would do with this villainous role. It looked like it was going to be great, but the final product wasn't what I'd hoped for. Whether it was the reshoots or it was never there in the first place I don't know but it's a chaotic performance that probably should have been left to a new character. Naming him would have been fine if they'd actually given him the necessary story to explain him. As it is we get a glimpse of Black Mask and his gang but it doesn't mean a lot, and in the end it's a rather wasted opportunity.
There are a lot of things I want to say so I think I'm just going to list them off for a bit and then get back to something sensible...
Bojana Novakovic scene where she's on the table. It's completely out of place, there are plenty of ways to show Roman's paranoia and his bizarrely toxic relationship with Zsasz and any of them would have been better than this. The only good thing to take from it is that Black Canary has a really strong performance in it.
LGBT representation. There's so much of it and yet none whatsoever. They show us that Harley had a girlfriend in the past. Montoya is gay and we see the tatters of her relationship with Ellen Yee in a couple of brief exchanges. Roman and Zsasz... their relationship is an odd one, while not acknowledged as being gay they do have a very close bond. It could just be that they enable the destructive kindred spirit in each other, but Zsasz does have a jealous side that appears randomly. So like I said, there's a lot of inclusivity and yet none of it really get much airtime, and certainly not positive airtime.
Harley's narration and what it means for the story. The internet loves its controversy and one of the things with Birds Of Prey is that it's feminism gone made because all men are depicted as bad in the film. What I would say to that is that Harley is the narrator. She's fresh off her breakup with the Joker and she's angry... if she's telling this story the men are either going to be non-descript (police officers minding their own business in her attack) or bad (actual villains, minions or people who have wronged her friends who would therefore be bad in her mind). By that logic it's a really consistent narrative.
I think I've covered most of the random musings there.
Action in Birds Of Prey is really fun, but a little frustrating at times. The police station raid that we see in the trailer is brilliant and I love Harley's fun gun, it's a magical thing to watch and the explosions of colour add a great twist. It's really well choreographed and I actually think it builds well on Harley's changing nature from Suicide Squad. I do have issues with this same sequence though. Those sprinklers, there's no need for it apart from some added flair when they fight... and of course the bad guys all queue up to fight her one by one, very considerate. It then progresses to the evidence room and I don't think they took enough advantage of that for comedic effect, though I did like that it taught me a great technique for escaping an attacker and Harley got a great trick shot in.
The other big sequence is the finale where our leading ladies face off against those evil men inside the fun house (not the Pat Sharp one). There are a lot of oversized props and Cain is just kind of tossed around the set like a ragdoll but there are some amusing moments to be had out of it. My issue with this one is that they don't think things through and they get themselves into something that was entirely avoidable.
Design of everything from costumes to sets is fabulous, the colours in particular really jump out. The camerawork is great too and I enjoyed the slightly hyper nature to it with the way it switches up within scenes. Music choices are brilliant too and I've been on Spotify and got the songs to listen to, none of this album malarkey though, I found a list online of all the song, don't do it by halves... Barracuda and Black Betty need to be on your playlist!
I know I kind of fluffed over those bits very quickly but honestly I don't know how you're still reading this review at this point.
So, in conclusion... there are a lot of flaws, on first viewing I loved the beginning but felt let down by the end. My second viewing went a very similar way, though the divide blurred away a little bit. Even with these issues I really enjoyed Birds Of Prey, the acting is all good (it's only the characters I have problems with) and it's just crazy fun. People pick at the way DCEU films have been going, but honestly, I'm loving it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/birds-of-prey-movie-review.html
Harley is fresh off a breakup and she's looking for something to help her bounce back. When she finds the perfect way it's liberating, she's a whole new woman... she's also the managed to declare open season on herself. The who's who of Gotham villainy are looking for revenge and there's no one to protect her.
In the inevitable chaos she leaves in her wake she comes across a group of ladies who are all in need of some new friends.
I went in expecting something with a bit of sass, that's all I really had in mind before seeing it, violence and sass. It certainly didn't disappoint on that level. But there was some confusion for me because there was a lot of film without actually feeling we were into the meat of the story... or what I had assumed was the main point of the film. That fact left me pondering about whether this should have had a different title.
The opening was a particular surprise, it was so different and it really worked. It provided a quick recap on what we'd missed between previous offerings and did it in such a fun way. I loved the animation style and it had some nods of nostalgia in there too.
Being the villain with a touch of hero puts Harley on a level with other characters and films, there are many little flashes throughout that remind me of Deadpool and Suicide Squad. Even with those nods it definitely takes on its own twist. There's no denying that Harley is a great character, and Robbie plays her fantastically, but she's been done wrong by being given a film without the proper credit of it... Birds of Prey: And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn... As I said above, perhaps this name was misplaced. Giving the Birds Of Prey headline billing makes you think you're getting something very different. Traditionally you would go from existing content to new... here's Harley and introducing Birds Of Prey... but while the story does that the title does the complete opposite. I don't know why they wouldn't just have given the honour to Harley instead of a rather fanciful footnote of a subtitle.
Harley has some great moments in this film, the emotion on her face when she works out how to get closure and then this...
[sadly no amazing gif in this review, you can see it on my blog, link below]
I can see the whole thing as being within her personality, but somehow not the end of the film, that's the bit that didn't feel right to me.
The whole film feels like a set up for an actual Birds Of Prey film, but I'm not sure any of the characters really got their due. Renee Montoya was originally a character made for Batman's part of Gotham, not Harley's, she was affected by the corruption of the Police Department and her story feels like it was much more serious and dark there than it was here. Black Canary, again, doesn't seem to live up to existing backstory, though her caring nature in this is a welcome addition and she probably does the best out of the story. Huntress' story is a general amalgam of existing things, but she doesn't develop much, the fact that she's "new" to this lifestyle is played on a lot and her inexperience is used for humour most of the time. Cassandra Cain is probably the worst pickpocket in Gotham and yet somehow manages to steal a lot of stuff, what's more frustrating here is that the name holds a lot of weight in the DCEU but not in this film.
There are a lot of "main" characters and that doesn't help matters, but when they interact they all work quite well together. I don't think it would have hurt to have Montoya there in a lesser capacity, and the same goes for Cain. Neither character in this incarnation do a lot, though Cain physically has an important part to play.
Ewan McGregor's Roman Sionis/Black Mask. From the trailer I was keen to see what McGregor would do with this villainous role. It looked like it was going to be great, but the final product wasn't what I'd hoped for. Whether it was the reshoots or it was never there in the first place I don't know but it's a chaotic performance that probably should have been left to a new character. Naming him would have been fine if they'd actually given him the necessary story to explain him. As it is we get a glimpse of Black Mask and his gang but it doesn't mean a lot, and in the end it's a rather wasted opportunity.
There are a lot of things I want to say so I think I'm just going to list them off for a bit and then get back to something sensible...
Bojana Novakovic scene where she's on the table. It's completely out of place, there are plenty of ways to show Roman's paranoia and his bizarrely toxic relationship with Zsasz and any of them would have been better than this. The only good thing to take from it is that Black Canary has a really strong performance in it.
LGBT representation. There's so much of it and yet none whatsoever. They show us that Harley had a girlfriend in the past. Montoya is gay and we see the tatters of her relationship with Ellen Yee in a couple of brief exchanges. Roman and Zsasz... their relationship is an odd one, while not acknowledged as being gay they do have a very close bond. It could just be that they enable the destructive kindred spirit in each other, but Zsasz does have a jealous side that appears randomly. So like I said, there's a lot of inclusivity and yet none of it really get much airtime, and certainly not positive airtime.
Harley's narration and what it means for the story. The internet loves its controversy and one of the things with Birds Of Prey is that it's feminism gone made because all men are depicted as bad in the film. What I would say to that is that Harley is the narrator. She's fresh off her breakup with the Joker and she's angry... if she's telling this story the men are either going to be non-descript (police officers minding their own business in her attack) or bad (actual villains, minions or people who have wronged her friends who would therefore be bad in her mind). By that logic it's a really consistent narrative.
I think I've covered most of the random musings there.
Action in Birds Of Prey is really fun, but a little frustrating at times. The police station raid that we see in the trailer is brilliant and I love Harley's fun gun, it's a magical thing to watch and the explosions of colour add a great twist. It's really well choreographed and I actually think it builds well on Harley's changing nature from Suicide Squad. I do have issues with this same sequence though. Those sprinklers, there's no need for it apart from some added flair when they fight... and of course the bad guys all queue up to fight her one by one, very considerate. It then progresses to the evidence room and I don't think they took enough advantage of that for comedic effect, though I did like that it taught me a great technique for escaping an attacker and Harley got a great trick shot in.
The other big sequence is the finale where our leading ladies face off against those evil men inside the fun house (not the Pat Sharp one). There are a lot of oversized props and Cain is just kind of tossed around the set like a ragdoll but there are some amusing moments to be had out of it. My issue with this one is that they don't think things through and they get themselves into something that was entirely avoidable.
Design of everything from costumes to sets is fabulous, the colours in particular really jump out. The camerawork is great too and I enjoyed the slightly hyper nature to it with the way it switches up within scenes. Music choices are brilliant too and I've been on Spotify and got the songs to listen to, none of this album malarkey though, I found a list online of all the song, don't do it by halves... Barracuda and Black Betty need to be on your playlist!
I know I kind of fluffed over those bits very quickly but honestly I don't know how you're still reading this review at this point.
So, in conclusion... there are a lot of flaws, on first viewing I loved the beginning but felt let down by the end. My second viewing went a very similar way, though the divide blurred away a little bit. Even with these issues I really enjoyed Birds Of Prey, the acting is all good (it's only the characters I have problems with) and it's just crazy fun. People pick at the way DCEU films have been going, but honestly, I'm loving it.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/birds-of-prey-movie-review.html