Search
Search results
Dana (24 KP) rated A Conjuring of Light in Books
Mar 23, 2018
I tried to take my time with this book. I only listened to it for short amounts of time because I knew it was the last one and I wanted to take my time with it. Well, that and I was busy with Christmas stuff, so I guess I had to spend time with family.
So, onto the review. By the way, this is not spoiler free for the series or this book, so read at your own peril.
This book absolutely wrecked me. So we started off not knowing the status of Kell and therefore Rhys because they are freaking bound together via magical tattoos, so yeah, stressful. Then we have to know what is going on with Lila because how is she going to react to the information that Kell is possibly dying? I wasn't so sure. But damn am I glad she wanted to act. Then we have the knowledge that Holland is being taken over by Oseran because why not? Let's just have this piece of sentient magic take over an Antari's body to be able to take over worlds. Yes, plural. How could I not be okay with that? And that is all just from where we left off at the end of the last book, okay? I was a wreck when I started the book.
Alright, so onto Kell. He is so self sacrificing it kills me. Well, it nearly kills him and Rhys too, but that's beside the point. He, first, finds himself without magic, needing Delilah to come and save him. Then he is ostracized again from the court because obviously this is all his fault, right? Wrong. After that, he has to go on a mission with two people he hates as well as the woman he loves and a few strangers to boot. Not too bad so far. In order to save the woman he loves and (hopefully) protect her from harm, he is willing to do whatever, that means dying, to keep her alive and with magic. But he claims it's because he is able to control it better. Yeah, Kell. That's the reason. I can smell bullshit all the way over here, buddy. But really, even though he has a hard time staying alive and keeping out of trouble, I love Kell. He knows what is best for those he loves and will not hesitate to do it. He wants to travel the world, to get to see more than just London on any of the plains. And he gets to in the end. Plus, who doesn't want a person like Kell in their lives?
Now onto my girl Delilah. Hey there Delilah what's it like in Red London, are you trying to get yourself killed just to prove a point to Kell and Rhys? I would like to know why. (Sing that in the tune of the Plain White Tee's song, and you'll be golden.) But really. This girl has almost as much of a death wish as Kell does, swinging head first into danger without a plan most of the time. She is impulsive, rash, and strong as hell. And I wouldn't have her any other way. She hasn't known these people for very long, but she cares for them so deeply. She is also willing to give up everything to go up against Oseran, becasue why not? She thinks her unfiltered and untrained power can do a lot of damage. Which, yes it can, but not necessarily to your opponent, dear. I am proud of this scrappy little nobody. She became the badass pirate queen she has always needed to be. Plus, I like that she used her cunning and her knowledge as a thief to get the item they needed from the floating black market. So cool. Oh! And when she was battling Oseran and she freaking moved the river. Yeah girl! Prove Allucard wrong! Use that freaking ANTARI magic that you have. Get that black glass eye and become your true self!
Rhys is amazing. I honestly thought his father was going to do a spell to give Rhys his power when the King went out to fave Oseran in his palace, but I am glad he didn't. We need to see that even people without powers are powerful in their own right. He is a king, a commander, a force to be reckoned with, not in spite of his lack of magic, but because of it. He was able to train himself in the ways of people. He doesn't need magic to control, he's got words for that. What happened to his family, and almost happened to him, was heart breaking. I hate that he didn't really have time to mourn. I hate that he had to see his mother die in front of him. I hate that he didn't get to get revenge personally. But I know it would have hurt him as a character too much to have to kill those who betrayed the crown.
Allucard is still a hero in my eyes. He put up with so much shit from his family, and then Kell. I mean, the man paid for a magical mirror to be able to show Rhys the truth about why he left. HE JUST DESERVES TO BE HAPPY OKAY!!! I am glad that he and Rhys get to be together forever because they are in love and I love that love. Also, we got to see him use his magic so much more in this book. I feel like he got to earn his title as the winner of the Essen Tash. (I think that's how you spell it, I can't remember, okay). So, yeah, Allucard for life.
I don't know how she did it, but Ms Victoria Schwab made me like Holland. I just invested my hatred for this guy for two freaking books. TWO BOOKS!! And now I like him? What is this madness. But really, I loved that he was able to redeem himself and his actions. He just wanted to save his world and give it magic again. I like that he was able to use the device and save the day, even though he had to lose his power because of it. He is just, if not more so, self sacrificing as Kell and Lila are put together. He tries to die for the cause at least twice in this book. Also, I love that he becomes the King that is promised in White London. He brings back magic by giving up his. Just so beautiful.
All of the side characters were really interesting as well. I would love to see more into them if Ms Schwab has any plans to do so. As you can tell, I don't want to talk too much about Oseran because I don't like him. I will say, though, that Ms Schwab did a fantastic job creating such a vile creature. He brought a lot to the story and, even though I didn't like the character, it was more on a personal level than the writing of the character. I just didn't like the villain. But I loved how she wrote him. (I hope at least some of that makes sense)
This series was phenomenal. Every page was an adventure and I was so happy to be dragged along. Thank you for writing this book. I can't wait to see what's next.
So, onto the review. By the way, this is not spoiler free for the series or this book, so read at your own peril.
This book absolutely wrecked me. So we started off not knowing the status of Kell and therefore Rhys because they are freaking bound together via magical tattoos, so yeah, stressful. Then we have to know what is going on with Lila because how is she going to react to the information that Kell is possibly dying? I wasn't so sure. But damn am I glad she wanted to act. Then we have the knowledge that Holland is being taken over by Oseran because why not? Let's just have this piece of sentient magic take over an Antari's body to be able to take over worlds. Yes, plural. How could I not be okay with that? And that is all just from where we left off at the end of the last book, okay? I was a wreck when I started the book.
Alright, so onto Kell. He is so self sacrificing it kills me. Well, it nearly kills him and Rhys too, but that's beside the point. He, first, finds himself without magic, needing Delilah to come and save him. Then he is ostracized again from the court because obviously this is all his fault, right? Wrong. After that, he has to go on a mission with two people he hates as well as the woman he loves and a few strangers to boot. Not too bad so far. In order to save the woman he loves and (hopefully) protect her from harm, he is willing to do whatever, that means dying, to keep her alive and with magic. But he claims it's because he is able to control it better. Yeah, Kell. That's the reason. I can smell bullshit all the way over here, buddy. But really, even though he has a hard time staying alive and keeping out of trouble, I love Kell. He knows what is best for those he loves and will not hesitate to do it. He wants to travel the world, to get to see more than just London on any of the plains. And he gets to in the end. Plus, who doesn't want a person like Kell in their lives?
Now onto my girl Delilah. Hey there Delilah what's it like in Red London, are you trying to get yourself killed just to prove a point to Kell and Rhys? I would like to know why. (Sing that in the tune of the Plain White Tee's song, and you'll be golden.) But really. This girl has almost as much of a death wish as Kell does, swinging head first into danger without a plan most of the time. She is impulsive, rash, and strong as hell. And I wouldn't have her any other way. She hasn't known these people for very long, but she cares for them so deeply. She is also willing to give up everything to go up against Oseran, becasue why not? She thinks her unfiltered and untrained power can do a lot of damage. Which, yes it can, but not necessarily to your opponent, dear. I am proud of this scrappy little nobody. She became the badass pirate queen she has always needed to be. Plus, I like that she used her cunning and her knowledge as a thief to get the item they needed from the floating black market. So cool. Oh! And when she was battling Oseran and she freaking moved the river. Yeah girl! Prove Allucard wrong! Use that freaking ANTARI magic that you have. Get that black glass eye and become your true self!
Rhys is amazing. I honestly thought his father was going to do a spell to give Rhys his power when the King went out to fave Oseran in his palace, but I am glad he didn't. We need to see that even people without powers are powerful in their own right. He is a king, a commander, a force to be reckoned with, not in spite of his lack of magic, but because of it. He was able to train himself in the ways of people. He doesn't need magic to control, he's got words for that. What happened to his family, and almost happened to him, was heart breaking. I hate that he didn't really have time to mourn. I hate that he had to see his mother die in front of him. I hate that he didn't get to get revenge personally. But I know it would have hurt him as a character too much to have to kill those who betrayed the crown.
Allucard is still a hero in my eyes. He put up with so much shit from his family, and then Kell. I mean, the man paid for a magical mirror to be able to show Rhys the truth about why he left. HE JUST DESERVES TO BE HAPPY OKAY!!! I am glad that he and Rhys get to be together forever because they are in love and I love that love. Also, we got to see him use his magic so much more in this book. I feel like he got to earn his title as the winner of the Essen Tash. (I think that's how you spell it, I can't remember, okay). So, yeah, Allucard for life.
I don't know how she did it, but Ms Victoria Schwab made me like Holland. I just invested my hatred for this guy for two freaking books. TWO BOOKS!! And now I like him? What is this madness. But really, I loved that he was able to redeem himself and his actions. He just wanted to save his world and give it magic again. I like that he was able to use the device and save the day, even though he had to lose his power because of it. He is just, if not more so, self sacrificing as Kell and Lila are put together. He tries to die for the cause at least twice in this book. Also, I love that he becomes the King that is promised in White London. He brings back magic by giving up his. Just so beautiful.
All of the side characters were really interesting as well. I would love to see more into them if Ms Schwab has any plans to do so. As you can tell, I don't want to talk too much about Oseran because I don't like him. I will say, though, that Ms Schwab did a fantastic job creating such a vile creature. He brought a lot to the story and, even though I didn't like the character, it was more on a personal level than the writing of the character. I just didn't like the villain. But I loved how she wrote him. (I hope at least some of that makes sense)
This series was phenomenal. Every page was an adventure and I was so happy to be dragged along. Thank you for writing this book. I can't wait to see what's next.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Cloud Atlas (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
While I am not familiar with the novel, I was not excited to review the film adaptation of David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas. Though the Screenplay was written and directed by the Wachowskis (The Matrix) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) I did not know exactly what I was getting into. The trailer shows it as an epic sci-fi film crossing the time and lives of several stories and how everything and everyone is connected. Needless to say my curiosity was piqued. But I was nervous because I knew it would take a grand effort to keep this epic and ambitious project from falling flat. And well, I can honestly say that I am not quite sure if the combined effort succeeded.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Allow me to explain. About an hour into the film I had a young film reviewer to my left and I noticed he started to nod his head in approval at each new developing story throughout the film. To my right was a friend of mine, I would consider as an average film viewer, who at this same time I could tell was counting the minutes till the lights came up but felt trapped with nowhere to go but forward. And for me, I can see both sides of these reactions.
The plot is comprised of a multi-narrative of six stories, each with a complete beginning, middle and end. These stories are told from different timelines following a group of souls throughout the ages to show how everything is woven together and the connection between them; From the 1849 slave trader, to a young composer in 1936 Britain, to a 1973 journalist attempting to uncover corruption of the big business ruling class, to a 2012 literary publisher who’s life becomes a daring escape from a geriatric home, to a 2144 Neo-Soul synthetic learning to become human, to a post-apocalyptic tribesman trying to save his world and family… Lost yet? Believe me you will want to focus during the first hour of this film as we are introduced to the sudden shift of timelines. All of the main actors appear as varying characters of significance in every narrative, each with different accents and types of language. It is a bit of an unexpected bother to keep everything straight at first, however if you pay attention it is fairly easy to follow. This first hour is where I feel the film becomes a make or break for those actively thinking about what they are watching and the average movie viewer who is just there to be entertained and see the new Tom Hanks (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close) or Halle Berry (Perfect Stanger) movie. For those who make it through that first hour still engaged, the film moves along at a steady pace and provides everything from romance to action that keeps you guessing and intrigued at what is next to come.
The Wachowskis and Tykwer do an outstanding job of visually fleshing out each timeline in its own visual style, especially the futuristic ones, which subtlety organize each narrative for the viewer. Additionally, there are so many talented actors in this film and it is somewhat fascinating to try and pick them out throughout the film. It is almost like a giant game of Where’s Waldo on screen as the makeup and special effects artists do a fantastic job of making the actors fit each character in every timeline. In fact, during the fourth or fifth timeline a lady in my row asked her partner if the man on screen was Forrest Gump, which was surprising because Hanks was the easiest character to pick out among them all.
Tom Hanks delivers one of his better performances in years. We watch his character’s soul transition from a sinister and vile doctor to a tribesman making the righteous choice while struggling with that inkling of evil that is the devil within us all. It was refreshing to see Hanks play parts that were not just an “everyman” that he has played in recent years.
Halle Berry’s performance is mostly average in her parts with the exception of 1973 journalist role where she is the main protagonist. Hugo Weaving channels a bit of his Agent Smith role from The Matrix as he plays a villain throughout the timelines. Hugh Grant (Love Actually) makes unexpected soild appearances throughout the timelines. With Jim Sturgess (One Day), James D’Arcy (Mansfield Park) and Ben Whishaw (who is the new Q in the upcoming James Bond film Skyfall) rounding out the cast with a young contrast to the already heavy acting handled by the bigger names of this film. Each of these young actors hold’s their own against their older more notable counterparts. Whishaw’s performance as the lead in the 1936 composer role is especially noteworthy.
The other stand out performance in the film comes from Jim Broadbent best known in the states as Professor Slughorn in the Harry Potter Films. His performance in the 1936 composer and 2012 literary publisher are excellent. The Publisher story was my favorite timeline throughout the film. Not only did it deliver some much needed comic relief to an emotionally engaging and heavy film, but it also made me care the most about the elderly characters trying to escape the clutches of the geriatric prison of a nursing home. Unfortunately, other than the aforementioned comic relief this timeline seemed the most unnecessary to the overarching story at hand.
When I left the film and talked it over with my friend I was indifferent to the film. It was not great, it was not bad either. As my friend described it, it was a movie that was trying too hard. We agreed that somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but we were not sure if we watched it.
However as the days have passed I have found myself thinking about the stories constantly. More specifically about how the main protagonist played by a different actor in each narrative has the same birthmark of a shooting star that in some way symbolizes some universal soul encompassing a new shell of a body in each timeline. Like some kind of reincarnation of that soul is fighting the same revolution throughout the ages against the powerful class and illusion of natural order. Additionally how each of the central characters found themselves connected with the main characters in the stories that preceded them through some kind of medium; whether it was by an old journal, or love letters, or a written story, or film, or message of hope. These subtle insights of growth and change for this main soul leaping into a new life in each timeline has caused me to examine our world and how we as people can be truly connected to one another not only today, but throughout the ages. I want to view the film again and am inspired to read the novel in some sort of effort to better understand these concepts.
Nevertheless as a film that is almost three hours long it does its best to be an epic sci-fi film and give something for everyone. And while it succeeds in many aspects of feel, it also falls short in aspects that are probably best accomplished in a literary form. As I said above, somewhere in the six storylines there may be a great film, but I am not sure if I watched it. Or maybe I am not intelligent enough to comprehend it. Because of that I can only give it an average score. Though I believe if you ask me after a second viewing, I may be inclined to raise it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It is easy to be cynical or dismissive regarding the trend in Hollywood to take up beloved gems of the past – namely our childhoods – and adapt them to the big screen with all of the flare and clichés of a summer blockbuster. Yet, what happens when it actually ends up winning you over? There’s a moment in movies like “Snow White and the Huntsman” in which you realize you have let go of those prejudices and notions of incorruptible nostalgia and you’ve actually started to enjoy a new rendition of something old. It’s the directorial debut for the film’s helmer, Rupert Sanders; and to be honest he’s the star of the show. As shallow as it is to say, the visual effects and action overshadow most flaws with characters, acting, or uneven pacing. Not only because his directing ability is well done, but because any flaws with the movie are relatively minor.
The movie retells the familiar story of Snow White (Kristen Stewart), likely popularized by Disney’s adaptation for most of us. Yet, the film takes more influence from the original fairy tale with the additional focus on the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth). Snow White grows up in a kingdom under the rule of her wicked step-mother, Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron). The Queen is a narcissistic tyrant obsessed with preserving her physical beauty – at the behest of the entire land and its people. One day, the Queen’s mirror warns that Snow White is fairer than her which leads her to order Snow White’s death. Snow White escapes, and goes on an adventure to save herself and her kingdom with the help of the Huntsman, seven dwarves, and other fantastical allies.
The movie’s framework holds up fairly well. To be honest it was my biggest worry going into the movie – that its plot would break under bloating or simply feeling uninspired. Neither was the case, yet if it were to tip in one side or the other it definitely tips in the direction of a bloated plot. Some characters simply do not get the screentime they require, and with so many characters already it feels like some of them could have been taken out entirely without much effect. Trimming down of characters and irrelevant plot threads could have benefitted the movie greatly. It does, however, do a serviceable job establishing its own identity among fantasy epics. It’s refreshing to see a movie fully embrace two extremes – full-on hard fantasy and the more gritty, realistic and perhaps minimalist fantasy. It strikes a balance with both, so you will see great effects for trolls and fairies while still maintaining a gothic medieval feel. The plot moves forward at a mostly well-paced format, but unfortunately wavers here and there. Sometimes I wished the movie would linger on certain scenes longer – as it can help to have us dwell on great character moments or moments of visual beauty – an unfortunate side effect of a bloated script. While not a problem for the overall plot, the uneven pacing in some scenes can feel a bit rushed. Some questions in the plot went unanswered, but fortunately they aren’t important to the overall understanding of the story.
The only other major issue with the movie is acting. Kristen Stewart as Snow White was an odd choice. Not to say her performance is bad in this film, but it is awkward at points. In some moments she does very well but in others she seems uninspired. It is hard to see her as the titular character instead of just Kristen Stewart in those instances; and in those scenes it feels like she’s as much part of the audience as we are – just with more of a one-note “concerned” facial expression for every instance. While not a breaking element, it leaves more to be desired from her, especially in interactions with others. Chris Hemsworth was much more enjoyable as the Huntsman, and honestly I think his performance along with Theron’s far outbalance any flaws in Kristen Stewart’s acting. The chemistry between the two protagonists seems one sided, as Chris Hemsworth acts well on his side of the equation, but Stewart unfortunately does not reciprocate. Essentially this makes a potential major relationship fall flat. However, Theron completely inhibits the role as the evil Queen. While she may overact in some scenes, she does an excellent job playing a sinister, abusive, powerful and surprisingly tragic villain.
The highlight of the movie is definitely its visual design, cinematography, and action. The only downside in this area is that this movie will definitely remind you of other great movies from long ago. Obvious inspiration from “The Lord of the Rings” echoes while watching, as it even features the same faraway montage shots of the group traversing grand vistas. If you can get passed these obvious influences, it does establish a vibrant and inspired design. That is one of the greatest aspects of the movie – the fact that the director can do so much in a single scene to really draw you in. He does an excellent job using color and pattern contrasts to a striking and awesome effect. There are some great moments that have no action yet are just as enthralling to watch, something difficult to do with just visual style. A great use of color really brings out the themes of the movie – the grey monotones and gothic style bring out a sense of dread and annihilation throughout the Queen’s empire. She truly is a force of parasitism – entirely vampiric in the way she sucks the life out of the entire land around her. She is the embodiment of self-obsession with physical beauty – a force so vain and narcissistic that she acts as a black hole absorbing all beauty around her. Sanders plays this against the vibrant designs of the forest in which Snow White spends most of her time. Alive, colorful, and natural – she embodies natural beauty – and in doing so she seemingly commands nature itself.
Sanders’ directing ability really shines in scenes of action. Instead of lazy overuse of “shaky-cam” to get the effect, he balances it with just enough on-screen choreography so you get intensity without confusion. The movie is truly action packed with familiar medieval-esque battles throughout, but highlighted by truly amazing shots of action and use of fantastical effects. There were a couple instances of eye-rolling wonder at battlefield tactics, but that gets into too much of an area of nitpicking. The action really is one of the best aspects of the movie, and these scenes by themselves outweigh many already mentioned issues.
Overall, “Snow White and the Huntsman” has proven to be a great initial outing for director Rupert Sanders. There are some issues in the flick – namely some instances of uneven pacing and acting issues which leaves some potential to be desired. But even these seemingly huge issues are overshadowed by an excellent use of visual design, cinematography, and action. The plot may be merely serviceable overall, and the movie will remind you of great films long past; yet it still happens to triumph in its main goal – to retell the classic fairly tale of Snow White in the modern Blockbuster sense. In a summer packed with science fiction and superheroes, an entertaining fantasy movie fits in quite nicely.
The movie retells the familiar story of Snow White (Kristen Stewart), likely popularized by Disney’s adaptation for most of us. Yet, the film takes more influence from the original fairy tale with the additional focus on the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth). Snow White grows up in a kingdom under the rule of her wicked step-mother, Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron). The Queen is a narcissistic tyrant obsessed with preserving her physical beauty – at the behest of the entire land and its people. One day, the Queen’s mirror warns that Snow White is fairer than her which leads her to order Snow White’s death. Snow White escapes, and goes on an adventure to save herself and her kingdom with the help of the Huntsman, seven dwarves, and other fantastical allies.
The movie’s framework holds up fairly well. To be honest it was my biggest worry going into the movie – that its plot would break under bloating or simply feeling uninspired. Neither was the case, yet if it were to tip in one side or the other it definitely tips in the direction of a bloated plot. Some characters simply do not get the screentime they require, and with so many characters already it feels like some of them could have been taken out entirely without much effect. Trimming down of characters and irrelevant plot threads could have benefitted the movie greatly. It does, however, do a serviceable job establishing its own identity among fantasy epics. It’s refreshing to see a movie fully embrace two extremes – full-on hard fantasy and the more gritty, realistic and perhaps minimalist fantasy. It strikes a balance with both, so you will see great effects for trolls and fairies while still maintaining a gothic medieval feel. The plot moves forward at a mostly well-paced format, but unfortunately wavers here and there. Sometimes I wished the movie would linger on certain scenes longer – as it can help to have us dwell on great character moments or moments of visual beauty – an unfortunate side effect of a bloated script. While not a problem for the overall plot, the uneven pacing in some scenes can feel a bit rushed. Some questions in the plot went unanswered, but fortunately they aren’t important to the overall understanding of the story.
The only other major issue with the movie is acting. Kristen Stewart as Snow White was an odd choice. Not to say her performance is bad in this film, but it is awkward at points. In some moments she does very well but in others she seems uninspired. It is hard to see her as the titular character instead of just Kristen Stewart in those instances; and in those scenes it feels like she’s as much part of the audience as we are – just with more of a one-note “concerned” facial expression for every instance. While not a breaking element, it leaves more to be desired from her, especially in interactions with others. Chris Hemsworth was much more enjoyable as the Huntsman, and honestly I think his performance along with Theron’s far outbalance any flaws in Kristen Stewart’s acting. The chemistry between the two protagonists seems one sided, as Chris Hemsworth acts well on his side of the equation, but Stewart unfortunately does not reciprocate. Essentially this makes a potential major relationship fall flat. However, Theron completely inhibits the role as the evil Queen. While she may overact in some scenes, she does an excellent job playing a sinister, abusive, powerful and surprisingly tragic villain.
The highlight of the movie is definitely its visual design, cinematography, and action. The only downside in this area is that this movie will definitely remind you of other great movies from long ago. Obvious inspiration from “The Lord of the Rings” echoes while watching, as it even features the same faraway montage shots of the group traversing grand vistas. If you can get passed these obvious influences, it does establish a vibrant and inspired design. That is one of the greatest aspects of the movie – the fact that the director can do so much in a single scene to really draw you in. He does an excellent job using color and pattern contrasts to a striking and awesome effect. There are some great moments that have no action yet are just as enthralling to watch, something difficult to do with just visual style. A great use of color really brings out the themes of the movie – the grey monotones and gothic style bring out a sense of dread and annihilation throughout the Queen’s empire. She truly is a force of parasitism – entirely vampiric in the way she sucks the life out of the entire land around her. She is the embodiment of self-obsession with physical beauty – a force so vain and narcissistic that she acts as a black hole absorbing all beauty around her. Sanders plays this against the vibrant designs of the forest in which Snow White spends most of her time. Alive, colorful, and natural – she embodies natural beauty – and in doing so she seemingly commands nature itself.
Sanders’ directing ability really shines in scenes of action. Instead of lazy overuse of “shaky-cam” to get the effect, he balances it with just enough on-screen choreography so you get intensity without confusion. The movie is truly action packed with familiar medieval-esque battles throughout, but highlighted by truly amazing shots of action and use of fantastical effects. There were a couple instances of eye-rolling wonder at battlefield tactics, but that gets into too much of an area of nitpicking. The action really is one of the best aspects of the movie, and these scenes by themselves outweigh many already mentioned issues.
Overall, “Snow White and the Huntsman” has proven to be a great initial outing for director Rupert Sanders. There are some issues in the flick – namely some instances of uneven pacing and acting issues which leaves some potential to be desired. But even these seemingly huge issues are overshadowed by an excellent use of visual design, cinematography, and action. The plot may be merely serviceable overall, and the movie will remind you of great films long past; yet it still happens to triumph in its main goal – to retell the classic fairly tale of Snow White in the modern Blockbuster sense. In a summer packed with science fiction and superheroes, an entertaining fantasy movie fits in quite nicely.
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated The Robber Knight in Books
Sep 10, 2019
When you are fighting for the freedom of your people, falling in love with your enemy is not a great idea. Or is it? Ayla has to defend her castle and her people all on her own, with nobody to help her but a dark warrior she hates with all her heart.
Sir Reuben, the dreaded robber knight, has long been Ayla’s deadliest enemy. He has prayed on her and her people ever since her father fell ill, and she swore he would hang for his crimes. Now they are both trapped in her castle as the army of a far greater enemy approaches, and they have only one chance: stand together, or fall.
This book wasn’t bad, honestly. I’m a huge fan of historical fiction, and it had been awhile since I’ve read a medieval love story, so that was a nice change of pace.
The author is a historian, so there are a lot of little things in this book that you don’t see in a lot of other historical romance books. For instance,you can’t pull out arrows because there are often barbs attached to cause fatal wounds if pulled out. I did like learning about all of these facts. But sometimes Thier lets the historian in him gets the best of him, but more on that later.
Lady Ayla was a pretty interesting character. Headstrong and wise for her years, she is very noble and progressive. She has all of the makings for a great leader– with the exception of knowledge. I loved how kind and committed she was to her people and I love the fact that she has some spunk. I mean, if I’m getting robbed in the forest by this random stranger, then I hope I would swear him out too (of course, if I could beat him up and get away, then that’s even better, but Ayla doesn’t have much self-defense skills). But there were many times that she was annoying, like her insistence on being near battles, even before she started treating the sick. And how she tried to manage Sir Isenbard during battle. She had called on him for help because he was an experienced knight, and now she was questioning his commands and strategies in the heat of battle!
Mostly, though, I really did like Ayla. She defines the idea of nobility. With war inevitable, she’s willing to ride personally to the edges of her land to warn her subjects and she is always at the outskirts of battle to help care for the wounded. She invites everyone into the castle for their safety and rations herself as well as the others to conserve food. She’s even willing to corrupt herself to save her people.
Reuben is an excellent character as well, although it did take me awhile to like him. In the beginning he fell a little flat. It’s clear that he used to be a knight but something happened and now he robs people for his own greed. A near-death experience and being saved by Lady Ayla reawakens the humanity in him. And apparently also some depth.
In the beginning of the book he spends a lot of his time admiring his loot and laughing about his victims, who thought they had a right to steal from him. But that’s all he does. We have no real insight into his character or backstory until after he’s in Ayla’s care. Only then are there hints of a bad history where he had been arrested many times, been tortured, and had at one point been a member of respectable society. If it weren’t for the fact that I liked Ayla’a character and the plot so far, I probably would have stopped reading.
Thier is a writer who has really good potential in becoming a great romance writer, especially for historical fiction. The plots have some unique twists that are augmented by his knowledge of history and after Reuben’s character shaped up, he was an excellent love interest. But there is one huge problem with this story: the footnotes.
There are so many footnotes throughout most of the book that I feel like I’m reading a history textbook, which is not good when I usually read romance novels to take a break from homework. Not only are they distracting and unnecessary, but they are also rude and condescending. Sure, sometimes they were useful, like in explaining the references to the seven princes of hell. Another one was a pretty funny anecdote about how one of his readers had actually confirmed that lard burns and that burning arrows work because they had actually done it. There is also a lot of wit throughout the footnotes which is pretty amusing. But most of the time, they were annoying.
For instance, Robert Thier thought it was necessary to include a footnote about how witches were considered bad during medieval times. Seriously? Even if someone failed history, we know that witches are not considered fine, upstanding citizens. Or maybe he thinks all of us have been locked in our rooms with no books, internet or television for our entire lives and for the month of October we all miraculously fell into a coma so we couldn’t see the giant blow-up witch in the neighbor’s yard. And then we’d all wake up singing Christmas carols after the month long coma without a care in the world because this happens every year so we don’t know what a witch is. (I’m developing a conspiracy theory about how these strange comas was caused by witchcraft.)
Maybe Thier assumed that instead of us thinking Reuben was scared of witches when he wondered if Ayla was one, we just thought he was commenting on how much Ayla looked like Sandra Bullock.
And one of the footnotes was just plain offensive. Here is the line of text that the footnote is attached to: “Heel! Abominable villain! You dare defy me?” (page 74)
Now, here’s the footnote: “Sorry to disappoint the ladies, but this doesn’t refer to high heels. It is a medieval term for a very nasty person.”
Excuse me? Did you just assume that I thought it meant high heels and that would make me excited? What world do you live in?
Apparently he thinks “the ladies” are so dumb that we are incapable of taking context clues and we immediately think everything relates back to fashion. Maybe I didn’t know it meant “very nasty person”, but it’s pretty clear it’s a swear or insult of sometime, not a freaking Jimmy Choo. Does he just imagine us thinking high heel every time we hear the word?
“She broke his nose with the heel of her hand.” Oh. High heel!
“Heel, fido! I said heel!” Oh. High heel!
“It will take one or two days for your cut to heal.” Oh. High heel! (Because if he thinks we don’t understand the difference between uncomfortable footwear and an insult, then he probably thinks we can’t spell, either).
But hey, at least Robert Thier thinks women can memorize stuff, because the footnote links stop as the vocabulary is repeated instead of new terms being introduced.
Aside from the footnotes, I really do like this book, and I can’t wait to read the second part of it, which I’ll read soon. Thier still has a long way to go, but I think after he has more experience, he’ll write some great books.
Sir Reuben, the dreaded robber knight, has long been Ayla’s deadliest enemy. He has prayed on her and her people ever since her father fell ill, and she swore he would hang for his crimes. Now they are both trapped in her castle as the army of a far greater enemy approaches, and they have only one chance: stand together, or fall.
This book wasn’t bad, honestly. I’m a huge fan of historical fiction, and it had been awhile since I’ve read a medieval love story, so that was a nice change of pace.
The author is a historian, so there are a lot of little things in this book that you don’t see in a lot of other historical romance books. For instance,you can’t pull out arrows because there are often barbs attached to cause fatal wounds if pulled out. I did like learning about all of these facts. But sometimes Thier lets the historian in him gets the best of him, but more on that later.
Lady Ayla was a pretty interesting character. Headstrong and wise for her years, she is very noble and progressive. She has all of the makings for a great leader– with the exception of knowledge. I loved how kind and committed she was to her people and I love the fact that she has some spunk. I mean, if I’m getting robbed in the forest by this random stranger, then I hope I would swear him out too (of course, if I could beat him up and get away, then that’s even better, but Ayla doesn’t have much self-defense skills). But there were many times that she was annoying, like her insistence on being near battles, even before she started treating the sick. And how she tried to manage Sir Isenbard during battle. She had called on him for help because he was an experienced knight, and now she was questioning his commands and strategies in the heat of battle!
Mostly, though, I really did like Ayla. She defines the idea of nobility. With war inevitable, she’s willing to ride personally to the edges of her land to warn her subjects and she is always at the outskirts of battle to help care for the wounded. She invites everyone into the castle for their safety and rations herself as well as the others to conserve food. She’s even willing to corrupt herself to save her people.
Reuben is an excellent character as well, although it did take me awhile to like him. In the beginning he fell a little flat. It’s clear that he used to be a knight but something happened and now he robs people for his own greed. A near-death experience and being saved by Lady Ayla reawakens the humanity in him. And apparently also some depth.
In the beginning of the book he spends a lot of his time admiring his loot and laughing about his victims, who thought they had a right to steal from him. But that’s all he does. We have no real insight into his character or backstory until after he’s in Ayla’s care. Only then are there hints of a bad history where he had been arrested many times, been tortured, and had at one point been a member of respectable society. If it weren’t for the fact that I liked Ayla’a character and the plot so far, I probably would have stopped reading.
Thier is a writer who has really good potential in becoming a great romance writer, especially for historical fiction. The plots have some unique twists that are augmented by his knowledge of history and after Reuben’s character shaped up, he was an excellent love interest. But there is one huge problem with this story: the footnotes.
There are so many footnotes throughout most of the book that I feel like I’m reading a history textbook, which is not good when I usually read romance novels to take a break from homework. Not only are they distracting and unnecessary, but they are also rude and condescending. Sure, sometimes they were useful, like in explaining the references to the seven princes of hell. Another one was a pretty funny anecdote about how one of his readers had actually confirmed that lard burns and that burning arrows work because they had actually done it. There is also a lot of wit throughout the footnotes which is pretty amusing. But most of the time, they were annoying.
For instance, Robert Thier thought it was necessary to include a footnote about how witches were considered bad during medieval times. Seriously? Even if someone failed history, we know that witches are not considered fine, upstanding citizens. Or maybe he thinks all of us have been locked in our rooms with no books, internet or television for our entire lives and for the month of October we all miraculously fell into a coma so we couldn’t see the giant blow-up witch in the neighbor’s yard. And then we’d all wake up singing Christmas carols after the month long coma without a care in the world because this happens every year so we don’t know what a witch is. (I’m developing a conspiracy theory about how these strange comas was caused by witchcraft.)
Maybe Thier assumed that instead of us thinking Reuben was scared of witches when he wondered if Ayla was one, we just thought he was commenting on how much Ayla looked like Sandra Bullock.
And one of the footnotes was just plain offensive. Here is the line of text that the footnote is attached to: “Heel! Abominable villain! You dare defy me?” (page 74)
Now, here’s the footnote: “Sorry to disappoint the ladies, but this doesn’t refer to high heels. It is a medieval term for a very nasty person.”
Excuse me? Did you just assume that I thought it meant high heels and that would make me excited? What world do you live in?
Apparently he thinks “the ladies” are so dumb that we are incapable of taking context clues and we immediately think everything relates back to fashion. Maybe I didn’t know it meant “very nasty person”, but it’s pretty clear it’s a swear or insult of sometime, not a freaking Jimmy Choo. Does he just imagine us thinking high heel every time we hear the word?
“She broke his nose with the heel of her hand.” Oh. High heel!
“Heel, fido! I said heel!” Oh. High heel!
“It will take one or two days for your cut to heal.” Oh. High heel! (Because if he thinks we don’t understand the difference between uncomfortable footwear and an insult, then he probably thinks we can’t spell, either).
But hey, at least Robert Thier thinks women can memorize stuff, because the footnote links stop as the vocabulary is repeated instead of new terms being introduced.
Aside from the footnotes, I really do like this book, and I can’t wait to read the second part of it, which I’ll read soon. Thier still has a long way to go, but I think after he has more experience, he’ll write some great books.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Aug 28, 2020
Spectacular action set pieces done "in camera" (1 more)
Branagh and Debecki, both superb
Sound mix makes dialogue unintelligible (1 more)
In the words of Huey Lewis, "You're too darn loud"
Only Nolan and Schrödinger’s cat knows what’s going on.
Tenet is the long awaited new movie from Christopher Nolan. The movie that's set to reboot the multiplexes post-Covid. It's a manic, extremely loud, extremely baffling sci-fi cum spy rollercoaster that will please a lot of Nolan fan-boys but which left me with very mixed views.
How to write a spoiler-free plot summary? John David Washington (Denzel's lad) plays "The Protagonist" - a crack-CIA field operative who is an unstoppable one-man army in the style of Hobbs or Shaw. Recruited into an even more shadowy organisation, he's on the trail of an international arms dealer, Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh in full villain mode). Sator is bullying his estranged wife Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) over custody of their son (and the film unusually has a BBFC warning about "Domestic Abuse"). Our hero jets the world to try to prevent a very particular kind of Armageddon while also keeping the vulnerable and attractive Kat alive.
This is cinema at its biggest and boldest. Nolan has taken a cinema 'splurge' gun, filled it with money, set it on rapid fire, removed the safety and let rip at the screen. Given that Nolan is famous for doing all of his 'effects' for real and 'in camera', some of what you see performed is almost unbelievable. You thought crashing a train through rush-hour traffic in "Inception" was crazy? You ain't seen nothing yet with the airport scene! And for lovers of Chinooks (I must admit I am one and rush out of the house to see one if I hear it coming!) there is positively Chinook-p*rn on offer in the film's ridiculously huge finale.
The 'inversion' aspects of the story also lends itself to some fight scenes - one in particular in an airport 'freeport' - which are both bizarre to watch and, I imagine, technically extremely challenging to pull off. In this regard John David Washington is an acrobatic and talented stunt performer in his own right, and must have trained for months for this role.
Nolan's crew also certainly racked up their air miles pre-lockdown, since the locations range far and wide across the world. The locations encompassed Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and United States. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is lush in introducing these, especially the beautiful Italian coast scenes. Although I did miss the David Arnold strings that would typically introduce these in a Bond movie: it felt like that was missing.
The 'timey-wimey' aspects of the plot are also intriguing and very cleverly done. There are numerous points at which you think "Oh, that's a sloppy continuity error" or "Shame the production design team missed that cracked wing mirror". Then later in the movie, you get at least a dozen "Aha!" moments. Some of them (no spoilers) are jaw-droppingly spectacular.
Perhaps the best twist is hidden in the final line of the movie. I only processed it on the way home.
And so to the first of my significant gripes with Tenet. The sound mix in the movie is all over the place. I'd go stronger than that... it's truly awful (expletive deleted)! Nolan often implements Shakespeare's trick of having characters in the play provide exposition of the plot to aid comprehension. But unfortunately, all of this exposition dialogue was largely incomprehensible. This was due to:
- the ear-splitting volume of the sound: 2020 movie audiences are going to be suffering from 'Tenetis'! (that joke © David Moody, 2020);
- the dialogue is poorly mixed with the thumping music by Ludwig Göransson (Wot? No Hans Zimmer?);
- a large proportion of the dialogue was through masks of varying description (#covid-appropriate). Aaron Taylor-Johnson was particularly unintelligible to my ears.
Overall, watching this with subtitles at a special showing might be advisable!
OK, so I only have a PhD in Physics... but at times I was completely lost as to the intricacies of the plot. It made "Inception" look like "The Tiger Who Came to Tea". There was an obvious 'McGuffin' in "Inception" - - ("These 'dream levels'... how exactly are they architected??".... "Don't worry... they'll never notice". And we didn't!) In "Tenet" there are McGuffins nested in McGuffins. So much of this is casually waved away as "future stuff... you're not qualified" that it feels vaguely condescending to the audience. At one point Kat says "I don't understand what's going on" - darn right luv.
There are also gaps in the storyline that jar. The word "Tenet"? What does it mean. Is it just a password? I'm none the wiser.
The manic pace of Tenet and the constant din means that the movie gallops along like a series of disconnected (albeit brilliant) action set pieces. For me, it has none of the emotional heart of the Cobb's marriage problems from "Inception" or the father/daughter separation of "Interstellar". In fact, you barely care for anyone in the movie, perhaps with the exception of Kat.
It's a talented cast. As mentioned above, John David Washington is muscular and athletic in the role. It's a big load for the actor to carry in such a tent-pole movie, given his only significant starring role before was in the excellent BlacKkKlansman. But he carries it off well. A worthy successor to Gerard Butler and Jason Statham for action roles in the next 10 years.
This is also a great performance by Robert Pattinson, in his most high-profile film in a long time, playing the vaguely alcoholic and Carré-esque support guy. Pattinson's Potter co-star Clemence Poésy also pops up - rather more un-glam that usual - as the scientist plot-expositor early in the movie.
Nolan's regular Michael Caine also pops up. although the 87-year old legend is starting to show his age: His speech was obviously affected at the time of filming (though nice try Mr Nolan in trying to disguise that with a mouth full of food!). But in my book, any amount of Caine in a movie is a plus. He also gets to deliver the best killer line in the film about snobbery!
However, it's Kenneth Branagh and Elizabeth Debicki that really stand out. They were both fabulous, especially when they were bouncing off each other in their marital battle royale.
So, given this was my most anticipated movie of the year, it's a bit of a curate's egg for me. A mixture of being awe-struck at times and slightly disappointed at others. It's a movie which needs a second watch, so I'm heading back today to give my ear drums another bashing! And this is one where I reserve the right to revisit my rating after that second watch... it's not likely to go down... but it might go up.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/28/tenet-only-nolan-and-schrodingers-cat-knows-whats-going-on/ .)
How to write a spoiler-free plot summary? John David Washington (Denzel's lad) plays "The Protagonist" - a crack-CIA field operative who is an unstoppable one-man army in the style of Hobbs or Shaw. Recruited into an even more shadowy organisation, he's on the trail of an international arms dealer, Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh in full villain mode). Sator is bullying his estranged wife Kat (Elizabeth Debicki) over custody of their son (and the film unusually has a BBFC warning about "Domestic Abuse"). Our hero jets the world to try to prevent a very particular kind of Armageddon while also keeping the vulnerable and attractive Kat alive.
This is cinema at its biggest and boldest. Nolan has taken a cinema 'splurge' gun, filled it with money, set it on rapid fire, removed the safety and let rip at the screen. Given that Nolan is famous for doing all of his 'effects' for real and 'in camera', some of what you see performed is almost unbelievable. You thought crashing a train through rush-hour traffic in "Inception" was crazy? You ain't seen nothing yet with the airport scene! And for lovers of Chinooks (I must admit I am one and rush out of the house to see one if I hear it coming!) there is positively Chinook-p*rn on offer in the film's ridiculously huge finale.
The 'inversion' aspects of the story also lends itself to some fight scenes - one in particular in an airport 'freeport' - which are both bizarre to watch and, I imagine, technically extremely challenging to pull off. In this regard John David Washington is an acrobatic and talented stunt performer in his own right, and must have trained for months for this role.
Nolan's crew also certainly racked up their air miles pre-lockdown, since the locations range far and wide across the world. The locations encompassed Denmark, Estonia, India, Italy, Norway, the United Kingdom, and United States. Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography is lush in introducing these, especially the beautiful Italian coast scenes. Although I did miss the David Arnold strings that would typically introduce these in a Bond movie: it felt like that was missing.
The 'timey-wimey' aspects of the plot are also intriguing and very cleverly done. There are numerous points at which you think "Oh, that's a sloppy continuity error" or "Shame the production design team missed that cracked wing mirror". Then later in the movie, you get at least a dozen "Aha!" moments. Some of them (no spoilers) are jaw-droppingly spectacular.
Perhaps the best twist is hidden in the final line of the movie. I only processed it on the way home.
And so to the first of my significant gripes with Tenet. The sound mix in the movie is all over the place. I'd go stronger than that... it's truly awful (expletive deleted)! Nolan often implements Shakespeare's trick of having characters in the play provide exposition of the plot to aid comprehension. But unfortunately, all of this exposition dialogue was largely incomprehensible. This was due to:
- the ear-splitting volume of the sound: 2020 movie audiences are going to be suffering from 'Tenetis'! (that joke © David Moody, 2020);
- the dialogue is poorly mixed with the thumping music by Ludwig Göransson (Wot? No Hans Zimmer?);
- a large proportion of the dialogue was through masks of varying description (#covid-appropriate). Aaron Taylor-Johnson was particularly unintelligible to my ears.
Overall, watching this with subtitles at a special showing might be advisable!
OK, so I only have a PhD in Physics... but at times I was completely lost as to the intricacies of the plot. It made "Inception" look like "The Tiger Who Came to Tea". There was an obvious 'McGuffin' in "Inception" - - ("These 'dream levels'... how exactly are they architected??".... "Don't worry... they'll never notice". And we didn't!) In "Tenet" there are McGuffins nested in McGuffins. So much of this is casually waved away as "future stuff... you're not qualified" that it feels vaguely condescending to the audience. At one point Kat says "I don't understand what's going on" - darn right luv.
There are also gaps in the storyline that jar. The word "Tenet"? What does it mean. Is it just a password? I'm none the wiser.
The manic pace of Tenet and the constant din means that the movie gallops along like a series of disconnected (albeit brilliant) action set pieces. For me, it has none of the emotional heart of the Cobb's marriage problems from "Inception" or the father/daughter separation of "Interstellar". In fact, you barely care for anyone in the movie, perhaps with the exception of Kat.
It's a talented cast. As mentioned above, John David Washington is muscular and athletic in the role. It's a big load for the actor to carry in such a tent-pole movie, given his only significant starring role before was in the excellent BlacKkKlansman. But he carries it off well. A worthy successor to Gerard Butler and Jason Statham for action roles in the next 10 years.
This is also a great performance by Robert Pattinson, in his most high-profile film in a long time, playing the vaguely alcoholic and Carré-esque support guy. Pattinson's Potter co-star Clemence Poésy also pops up - rather more un-glam that usual - as the scientist plot-expositor early in the movie.
Nolan's regular Michael Caine also pops up. although the 87-year old legend is starting to show his age: His speech was obviously affected at the time of filming (though nice try Mr Nolan in trying to disguise that with a mouth full of food!). But in my book, any amount of Caine in a movie is a plus. He also gets to deliver the best killer line in the film about snobbery!
However, it's Kenneth Branagh and Elizabeth Debicki that really stand out. They were both fabulous, especially when they were bouncing off each other in their marital battle royale.
So, given this was my most anticipated movie of the year, it's a bit of a curate's egg for me. A mixture of being awe-struck at times and slightly disappointed at others. It's a movie which needs a second watch, so I'm heading back today to give my ear drums another bashing! And this is one where I reserve the right to revisit my rating after that second watch... it's not likely to go down... but it might go up.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/28/tenet-only-nolan-and-schrodingers-cat-knows-whats-going-on/ .)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 26, 2019
Leonardo DiCaprio (1 more)
Brad Pitt
It's 2 hours and 41 minutes and feels long. (2 more)
Story elements don't seem to go together.
Charles Manson stuff feels forced.
With Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood being his ninth feature film as writer and director and a career just shy of the three decade mark, you should probably know what to expect from a Quentin Tarantino film. Amongst all of the usual Tarantino trademarks of memorable performances, long strings of dialogue, a questionable amount of dancing, the inclusion of several shots of barefoot women, interior car sequences, and a relentless tidal wave of vulgarity that drowns the audience in a sea of sharp expletives, Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood lacks the one element that truly makes a Tarantino film worthwhile; coherent storytelling.
Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood should be great based on its cast alone. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers one of his more complex performances as television star turned infrequent movie star Rick Dalton. Dalton made a name for himself in a western TV series called Bounty Law. Rick burned that bridge when he tried to make the jump to movies and failed. Now he only seems to get work as the TV villain. Rick gets an opportunity in Rome to star in Italian spaghetti westerns and reluctantly accepts. Rick is an alcoholic that struggles with a stutter when he speaks. He has low self-esteem and questions every decision he makes. The scene where he flubs his lines followed by his angry outburst in his trailer is extraordinary. He’s also the one person on the planet who seems to hate hippies more than Eric Cartman.
Brad Pitt portrays Rick’s stunt double Cliff Booth. Cliff is a Vietnam War veteran who may or may not have (but probably did) kill his wife without any repercussions. Cliff hardly works as a stunt double anymore and mostly makes his living driving Rick around and doing various odd jobs for him. Cliff is the exact opposite of Rick. Rick lives in the Hollywood Hills in a roomy luxurious house with a pool and an extravagant view. Cliff lives in a trailer by a drive-in theater, eats macaroni and cheese for dinner, and has amazing chemistry with his pitbull Brandy. Cliff seems like a handy and capable guy, but he’s also extremely blunt. His to-the-point demeanor keeps Rick’s wilder antics in check the majority of the time. Cliff doesn’t exactly babysit Rick and allows him to live his own life, but he’s the one to give Rick the “you’re better than that,” kind of pep talk after it’s over.
One of the things mentioned in the film by Kurt Russell (he plays Randy and does the voiceover as the narrator) is that Rick and Cliff share this bond that is practically as deep as a brotherhood yet lacks the commitment of a marriage. Their bond is the backbone of the film and it’s interesting because they both seem like half decent people. Cliff may have killed someone and Rick beats himself up harder than anyone else could, but they’re both hard working individuals who put everything into their work and they have each other’s backs through thick and thin. Their bond is almost wholesome to the minuscule extent Tarantino will allow.
Brad Pitt’s chemistry with Brandy is also quite entertaining. There’s something comical about seeing Cliff rummage through his pantry filled with nothing but cans of dog food only to pull out two specific cans; one rat flavored and one raccoon flavored. He opens the cans with a manual can opener, tips them over in mid-air after removing their lids, and lets gravity guide that slop into whatever is designated as a food bowl that particular evening in a sickening PLOP! And a meaty splash that overflows onto the kitchen floor tiles. Cliff and Brandy seem almost as close as Cliff and Rick. They have this partnership that is easy to detect as soon as they’re on-screen together.
Mike Moh’s Bruce Lee impression isn’t totally flawless, but it is fairly excellent regardless. Moh is Korean and Bruce Lee was Chinese-American, so it’s an intriguing fit that works way better than you expect. The scene Moh has with Pitt as Bruce Lee and Cliff Booth have a physical encounter is an entertaining highlight of the film. The outrageous violence you’ve come to expect in a Tarantino film isn’t present in Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood until the final scene and it is a glorious display of dog biting, face pummeling, and flame throwing mayhem. If Cliff Booth hasn’t already established himself as a certified badass through the first two and a half hours, those last ten minutes certainly allow him to obtain that title with ease.
The unfortunate aspect of Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is that everything doesn’t really come together in a satisfying way. You’ve got a washed up actor trying to regain the spotlight, a stunt double struggling to find work and make a living despite his troublesome reputation, and the Charles Manson stuff with Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha) and Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) living next door to Rick and Cliff’s time at the Spahn Movie Ranch with the Manson Family. In 1968, Tate and four others were murdered in the home she shared with Polanski by members of the Manson Family while being eight-and-a-half months pregnant. It’s a horrendous statistic that puts a different perspective on the ending if you didn’t know beforehand. The Manson inclusion mostly feels like an afterthought that isn’t ever taken seriously.
So many recognizable names are a part of the cast and everyone outside of Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio are basically a waste. Margot Robbie has a few moments that mostly reside in her reacting to films starring Sharon Tate in a movie theater. Tate seems to represent this pure and positive light in the film while Rick and Cliff experience the uglier aspects of the Tarantino-skewed late 1960s. Robbie downright glows during that movie theater sequence with a bubbly and contagious attitude, but doesn’t do much else over the course of the film.
Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood feels longer than its 141-minute duration. It drags so often in between its enjoyable moments and seems to purposely lag during every dialogue heavy sequence that is just talking without any sort of payoff. Tarantino’s attention to the music of whatever era he’s depicting has always been a staple in his films, but it is on the verge of annoyance here. The dancing in the film feels like an excuse to stretch out the story that much longer for no other reason other than to blatantly rub the audience’s nose in the time period.
There are some masterful elements to Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood that shouldn’t be overlooked. Leonardo DiCaprio’s Rick F’ing Dalton sequence is explosively brilliant and Brad Pitt has this abrasive charm as Cliff Booth. It’s difficult to make the argument that Quentin Tarantino has original stories still worth telling at this point in his career though since this suffers from incoherent progression and a reasonable purpose for why we should care about these characters. At one point in the film, Rick tells Cliff with tears streaming down his face and this unhealthy cough full of cancerous phlegm, “It’s official old buddy. I’m a has-been.” Maybe this is how Tarantino feels about himself now that he’s nearing the end of his filmmaking career. That struggle to find meaning and a welcome audience for something he used to care deeply about but may have lost the passion for in recent years. He had a good run, but as it stands Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is overstuffed yet bland despite its two zesty leads.
Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood should be great based on its cast alone. Leonardo DiCaprio delivers one of his more complex performances as television star turned infrequent movie star Rick Dalton. Dalton made a name for himself in a western TV series called Bounty Law. Rick burned that bridge when he tried to make the jump to movies and failed. Now he only seems to get work as the TV villain. Rick gets an opportunity in Rome to star in Italian spaghetti westerns and reluctantly accepts. Rick is an alcoholic that struggles with a stutter when he speaks. He has low self-esteem and questions every decision he makes. The scene where he flubs his lines followed by his angry outburst in his trailer is extraordinary. He’s also the one person on the planet who seems to hate hippies more than Eric Cartman.
Brad Pitt portrays Rick’s stunt double Cliff Booth. Cliff is a Vietnam War veteran who may or may not have (but probably did) kill his wife without any repercussions. Cliff hardly works as a stunt double anymore and mostly makes his living driving Rick around and doing various odd jobs for him. Cliff is the exact opposite of Rick. Rick lives in the Hollywood Hills in a roomy luxurious house with a pool and an extravagant view. Cliff lives in a trailer by a drive-in theater, eats macaroni and cheese for dinner, and has amazing chemistry with his pitbull Brandy. Cliff seems like a handy and capable guy, but he’s also extremely blunt. His to-the-point demeanor keeps Rick’s wilder antics in check the majority of the time. Cliff doesn’t exactly babysit Rick and allows him to live his own life, but he’s the one to give Rick the “you’re better than that,” kind of pep talk after it’s over.
One of the things mentioned in the film by Kurt Russell (he plays Randy and does the voiceover as the narrator) is that Rick and Cliff share this bond that is practically as deep as a brotherhood yet lacks the commitment of a marriage. Their bond is the backbone of the film and it’s interesting because they both seem like half decent people. Cliff may have killed someone and Rick beats himself up harder than anyone else could, but they’re both hard working individuals who put everything into their work and they have each other’s backs through thick and thin. Their bond is almost wholesome to the minuscule extent Tarantino will allow.
Brad Pitt’s chemistry with Brandy is also quite entertaining. There’s something comical about seeing Cliff rummage through his pantry filled with nothing but cans of dog food only to pull out two specific cans; one rat flavored and one raccoon flavored. He opens the cans with a manual can opener, tips them over in mid-air after removing their lids, and lets gravity guide that slop into whatever is designated as a food bowl that particular evening in a sickening PLOP! And a meaty splash that overflows onto the kitchen floor tiles. Cliff and Brandy seem almost as close as Cliff and Rick. They have this partnership that is easy to detect as soon as they’re on-screen together.
Mike Moh’s Bruce Lee impression isn’t totally flawless, but it is fairly excellent regardless. Moh is Korean and Bruce Lee was Chinese-American, so it’s an intriguing fit that works way better than you expect. The scene Moh has with Pitt as Bruce Lee and Cliff Booth have a physical encounter is an entertaining highlight of the film. The outrageous violence you’ve come to expect in a Tarantino film isn’t present in Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood until the final scene and it is a glorious display of dog biting, face pummeling, and flame throwing mayhem. If Cliff Booth hasn’t already established himself as a certified badass through the first two and a half hours, those last ten minutes certainly allow him to obtain that title with ease.
The unfortunate aspect of Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is that everything doesn’t really come together in a satisfying way. You’ve got a washed up actor trying to regain the spotlight, a stunt double struggling to find work and make a living despite his troublesome reputation, and the Charles Manson stuff with Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha) and Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) living next door to Rick and Cliff’s time at the Spahn Movie Ranch with the Manson Family. In 1968, Tate and four others were murdered in the home she shared with Polanski by members of the Manson Family while being eight-and-a-half months pregnant. It’s a horrendous statistic that puts a different perspective on the ending if you didn’t know beforehand. The Manson inclusion mostly feels like an afterthought that isn’t ever taken seriously.
So many recognizable names are a part of the cast and everyone outside of Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio are basically a waste. Margot Robbie has a few moments that mostly reside in her reacting to films starring Sharon Tate in a movie theater. Tate seems to represent this pure and positive light in the film while Rick and Cliff experience the uglier aspects of the Tarantino-skewed late 1960s. Robbie downright glows during that movie theater sequence with a bubbly and contagious attitude, but doesn’t do much else over the course of the film.
Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood feels longer than its 141-minute duration. It drags so often in between its enjoyable moments and seems to purposely lag during every dialogue heavy sequence that is just talking without any sort of payoff. Tarantino’s attention to the music of whatever era he’s depicting has always been a staple in his films, but it is on the verge of annoyance here. The dancing in the film feels like an excuse to stretch out the story that much longer for no other reason other than to blatantly rub the audience’s nose in the time period.
There are some masterful elements to Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood that shouldn’t be overlooked. Leonardo DiCaprio’s Rick F’ing Dalton sequence is explosively brilliant and Brad Pitt has this abrasive charm as Cliff Booth. It’s difficult to make the argument that Quentin Tarantino has original stories still worth telling at this point in his career though since this suffers from incoherent progression and a reasonable purpose for why we should care about these characters. At one point in the film, Rick tells Cliff with tears streaming down his face and this unhealthy cough full of cancerous phlegm, “It’s official old buddy. I’m a has-been.” Maybe this is how Tarantino feels about himself now that he’s nearing the end of his filmmaking career. That struggle to find meaning and a welcome audience for something he used to care deeply about but may have lost the passion for in recent years. He had a good run, but as it stands Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is overstuffed yet bland despite its two zesty leads.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Initially when a franchise reboots a series not five years from its last installment this can often be seen as a sign that they’ve run out of ideas. It was reportedly the inability to find a suitable script that drove director-producer Sam Raimi and the stars of the Spider-man series away from a possible fourth outing and forced Sony/Columbia start fresh.
Selecting the relatively new Marc Webb who, outside of “500 Days of Summer”, had worked on music videos and most recently directed episode of The Office and the pilot for Lone Star, seemed like a very odd choice to turn over the billion-dollar franchise. The selection of American-born English actor Andrew Garfield also seemed to be an interesting choice to don the tights of the wall crawler.
Thankfully this is exactly the fresh start that the series needed. Even though I went into the film with guarded and reserved expectations I must say that I’m absolutely delighted with how the final product came out as this is a very fresh and faithful adaptation of the beloved comic book character that, in my opinion is the best adaptation to date on film.
The screenplay by James Vanderbilt was based on a story credited to three other writers all of whom clearly understand the character and the source material and are focused first and foremost with being respectful to it rather than putting their own unique stamp and take on the franchise.
The film does take a little bit of liberty by showing Peter Parker’s parents as they place young Peter in the custody of Ben and May Parker (Martin Sheen and Sally Fields) as they flee into a rainy night from implied danger, never to be seen again.
The film continues with teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), plodding his way through high school. As brilliant as Peter is academically, he is extremely awkward around girls especially the lovely Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who never fails to catch his eye. When a clue from his father’s past arises, Peter finds himself at Oscorp where Gwen works as an intern. Peter also finds himself on the radar of his dad’s former partner Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who becomes intrigued by young Peter’s scientific theories and even more so in his abilities when he learns that he is the offspring of his former partner.
Dr. Connors is working on cross species genetics and hopes that not only will it someday replaces missing arm, but will also pave a bold new direction for humanity. During a visit to the lab Peter, is bitten by a radioactive spider, and as any fan of the series knows, begins to exhibit amazing strength, agility, and perception, as well as the ability to walk on walls and cling to ceilings. In a very refreshing return to form, Peter fashions his famous web slingers rather than have them be organic as the previous film series did.
When a twist of fate puts Peter on the path of vengeance, he becomes a masked vigilante who uses his newfound abilities to rid New York some of its less pleasant citizens. These activities do not sit well with Captain Stacy (Denis Leary), who also happens to be Gwen’s father. As Peter and Gwen become closer, the duality of hiding his new identity from Capt. Stacy and Aunt May becomes even more imperative.
Naturally, it would not be much of a superhero film without a super villain, and Dr. Connors is more than willing to step up to this. Faced with pressure from his bosses he decides to use an experimental serum on himself. At first he is delighted as he seems to regrow his lost limb, but then in a Jekyll & Hyde-like transformation he transforms into a gigantic lizard creature bent on revenge and destruction as he attempts to complete a plan that will devastate millions of New York citizens.
Since Peter helped provide the equation that led to the formula that transform Dr. Connors, he feels obligated to stop the raging creature and to save his mentor no matter the cost. What follows are some truly spectacular action sequences including sewer battles in an extremely memorable finale across the Manhattan skyline.
While the film did take its time getting started as it established its back story and introduced the characters, once it got rolling it was an extremely fun and exhilarating ride. Garfield and Stone have a very good chemistry with one another and the reports of them recently dating off screen further solidifies their on-screen bond. Garfield wonderfully captures the conflicted emotions of Peter Parker as well as the brilliantly awkward genius that he is.
He runs the gamut of emotions from showing his anger and frustration to the dopey awkwardness of his interactions with Gwen and very believable manner. When he becomes infused with his new abilities you can almost share the glee that he has as he swings and flips around the landscape. The sheltered, socially awkward young man disappears when he dons the mask. He’s free to let himself go and Garfield does this with a childlike delight as well as the trademark quips and wisecracks that made the character such a beloved icon.
Garfield handles the physical duties of the role quite well and shines both in and out of the costume. I thought Tobey Maguire did a fantastic job bringing the character to life previously, but in my opinion Garfield has captured the essence of Peter Parker/ Spider-man and made it his own with a truly wonderful performance all around.
Stone does a great job as the love interest in the film as she is more than just eye candy and the typical damsel in distress far too common with this type of film. She challenges Peter and you can see some gleeful delight in her eyes when Peter awkwardly stumbles around her in an attempt to ask her out. Because she clearly enjoys the situation Gwen is not about to make it any easier on Peter, even though she’s been waiting for him to muster the courage for ages. She’s a strong and determined woman who gives a good range of emotions in her scenes and complements Garfield exceptionally well.
The supporting cast was very good especially Leary and Fields and Ifans does a good job as the quietly restrained Connors. In what could’ve easily been a scenery chewing, over-the-top Machiavellian bad guy, Ifans portrays Connors as a very sympathetic and understandable figure. He is a scientist first and foremost who is trying to do what he believes is right. He is not suited for the political machinations of a large corporation and when he begins this transformation and the animal side takes over there is still a hint of humanity amongst all the CGI work for the re-imagined Lizard.
While it did take me a while to get used to the look of The Lizard having become accustomed to his portrayal in comics and cartoons, I have to say it was a good updating it still stayed faithful to the essence of the original character.
Webb wisely decided to shoot in 3-D and not do a post filming conversion. It is the visually captivating and at times stunning cinema photography that really sets the tone for the film. You can truly get an idea of what it is like to be Spider-man as he swings and flips through the city and the point of view shots of his web firing out to latch onto objects and take down opponents are a lot of fun. Webb clearly knows the subject matter and gets the most out of his very talented cast and tells a very entertaining yet human action story and lets the effects support the film rather than carry it.
The film was much better than “Spider-man 3”. I am so happy that the franchise is in good hands and is moving forward in the right direction. Although the movie did take a while to get up to speed once it got rolling I did not want it to end, and I commented to my wife that I don’t want to have to wait 2 to 3 years for the next installment of the film I’m ready for more now. As a lifelong fan of comic I can honestly say I am beyond delighted with the new film, cast, director, and direction for the series.
Selecting the relatively new Marc Webb who, outside of “500 Days of Summer”, had worked on music videos and most recently directed episode of The Office and the pilot for Lone Star, seemed like a very odd choice to turn over the billion-dollar franchise. The selection of American-born English actor Andrew Garfield also seemed to be an interesting choice to don the tights of the wall crawler.
Thankfully this is exactly the fresh start that the series needed. Even though I went into the film with guarded and reserved expectations I must say that I’m absolutely delighted with how the final product came out as this is a very fresh and faithful adaptation of the beloved comic book character that, in my opinion is the best adaptation to date on film.
The screenplay by James Vanderbilt was based on a story credited to three other writers all of whom clearly understand the character and the source material and are focused first and foremost with being respectful to it rather than putting their own unique stamp and take on the franchise.
The film does take a little bit of liberty by showing Peter Parker’s parents as they place young Peter in the custody of Ben and May Parker (Martin Sheen and Sally Fields) as they flee into a rainy night from implied danger, never to be seen again.
The film continues with teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), plodding his way through high school. As brilliant as Peter is academically, he is extremely awkward around girls especially the lovely Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who never fails to catch his eye. When a clue from his father’s past arises, Peter finds himself at Oscorp where Gwen works as an intern. Peter also finds himself on the radar of his dad’s former partner Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who becomes intrigued by young Peter’s scientific theories and even more so in his abilities when he learns that he is the offspring of his former partner.
Dr. Connors is working on cross species genetics and hopes that not only will it someday replaces missing arm, but will also pave a bold new direction for humanity. During a visit to the lab Peter, is bitten by a radioactive spider, and as any fan of the series knows, begins to exhibit amazing strength, agility, and perception, as well as the ability to walk on walls and cling to ceilings. In a very refreshing return to form, Peter fashions his famous web slingers rather than have them be organic as the previous film series did.
When a twist of fate puts Peter on the path of vengeance, he becomes a masked vigilante who uses his newfound abilities to rid New York some of its less pleasant citizens. These activities do not sit well with Captain Stacy (Denis Leary), who also happens to be Gwen’s father. As Peter and Gwen become closer, the duality of hiding his new identity from Capt. Stacy and Aunt May becomes even more imperative.
Naturally, it would not be much of a superhero film without a super villain, and Dr. Connors is more than willing to step up to this. Faced with pressure from his bosses he decides to use an experimental serum on himself. At first he is delighted as he seems to regrow his lost limb, but then in a Jekyll & Hyde-like transformation he transforms into a gigantic lizard creature bent on revenge and destruction as he attempts to complete a plan that will devastate millions of New York citizens.
Since Peter helped provide the equation that led to the formula that transform Dr. Connors, he feels obligated to stop the raging creature and to save his mentor no matter the cost. What follows are some truly spectacular action sequences including sewer battles in an extremely memorable finale across the Manhattan skyline.
While the film did take its time getting started as it established its back story and introduced the characters, once it got rolling it was an extremely fun and exhilarating ride. Garfield and Stone have a very good chemistry with one another and the reports of them recently dating off screen further solidifies their on-screen bond. Garfield wonderfully captures the conflicted emotions of Peter Parker as well as the brilliantly awkward genius that he is.
He runs the gamut of emotions from showing his anger and frustration to the dopey awkwardness of his interactions with Gwen and very believable manner. When he becomes infused with his new abilities you can almost share the glee that he has as he swings and flips around the landscape. The sheltered, socially awkward young man disappears when he dons the mask. He’s free to let himself go and Garfield does this with a childlike delight as well as the trademark quips and wisecracks that made the character such a beloved icon.
Garfield handles the physical duties of the role quite well and shines both in and out of the costume. I thought Tobey Maguire did a fantastic job bringing the character to life previously, but in my opinion Garfield has captured the essence of Peter Parker/ Spider-man and made it his own with a truly wonderful performance all around.
Stone does a great job as the love interest in the film as she is more than just eye candy and the typical damsel in distress far too common with this type of film. She challenges Peter and you can see some gleeful delight in her eyes when Peter awkwardly stumbles around her in an attempt to ask her out. Because she clearly enjoys the situation Gwen is not about to make it any easier on Peter, even though she’s been waiting for him to muster the courage for ages. She’s a strong and determined woman who gives a good range of emotions in her scenes and complements Garfield exceptionally well.
The supporting cast was very good especially Leary and Fields and Ifans does a good job as the quietly restrained Connors. In what could’ve easily been a scenery chewing, over-the-top Machiavellian bad guy, Ifans portrays Connors as a very sympathetic and understandable figure. He is a scientist first and foremost who is trying to do what he believes is right. He is not suited for the political machinations of a large corporation and when he begins this transformation and the animal side takes over there is still a hint of humanity amongst all the CGI work for the re-imagined Lizard.
While it did take me a while to get used to the look of The Lizard having become accustomed to his portrayal in comics and cartoons, I have to say it was a good updating it still stayed faithful to the essence of the original character.
Webb wisely decided to shoot in 3-D and not do a post filming conversion. It is the visually captivating and at times stunning cinema photography that really sets the tone for the film. You can truly get an idea of what it is like to be Spider-man as he swings and flips through the city and the point of view shots of his web firing out to latch onto objects and take down opponents are a lot of fun. Webb clearly knows the subject matter and gets the most out of his very talented cast and tells a very entertaining yet human action story and lets the effects support the film rather than carry it.
The film was much better than “Spider-man 3”. I am so happy that the franchise is in good hands and is moving forward in the right direction. Although the movie did take a while to get up to speed once it got rolling I did not want it to end, and I commented to my wife that I don’t want to have to wait 2 to 3 years for the next installment of the film I’m ready for more now. As a lifelong fan of comic I can honestly say I am beyond delighted with the new film, cast, director, and direction for the series.
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.