Search
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Let the games begin!
Contains spoilers, click to show
This was an interesting film, the marketing was excellent and I wanted to see it even though I knew almost nothing about it. I knew it was based upon a novel but I hadn't read it. Jennifer Lawrence plays the lead of Katniss Everdeen and in my review of X-Men: First Class, I put her as the stand out performance of the film. I could see that she had something special, but would she be up to the task of carrying the whole film? Would my prediction about her be right?
The film is about a girl Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers to fight in the Hunger Games taking the place of her younger sister. Competitors in the games are forced to fight to the death until only one is left standing.
There have been many films about people hunting people from Hard Target (1993) with Jean-Claude Van Damme to Surviving the Game (1994) staring Ice-T. The one that is most similar in style is the Japanese classic Battle Royale (2000). It also has youths forced to fight to the death, but where that film was purely designed for adults to shock and horrify you, Hunger Games is based on a book for teenagers and so is the film.
This was a very good film and for the most part it was beautifully shot. The actors in this are perfectly cast which includes Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Wes Bentley, Paula Malcomson, Amandla Stenberg & Elizabeth Banks. Once again Jennifer Lawrence is outstanding, this time as the lead. Her portrayal of Katniss Everdeen is captivating. She has a great skill in drawing the audience in and making a connection with them. As with her performance in X-Men: First Class, her skill in portraying emotions comes over amazingly.
The film is a great visual treat, with a good story. However as good as the film is, the film makers failed in the transition from book to screen.
Minor Spoilers The book is set from the perspective of Katniss who is telling the story. However this is not the case with the film. It is just a story. The film really loses a lot from changing the format. With the book you get a lot of the history of the Hunger Games and you understand what they are all about. With the film this is missed out and barely covered in a small written intro. All the film needed to do was to have Katniss telling the story at least up until the point where her sister is chosen. Her giving a background narrative over the start of the film would have made a perfect introduction. The way it was done left me as a viewer without the necessary information I felt was needed to create an emotional connection to the characters and the story. Fortunately for me I started to read the book the night before the viewing as I had read that the film was a little vague during the opening scenes. This gave me the background that unfortunately the viewers of the film wouldn't necessarily have.
Minor Spoilers end The intentionally shaky camera shots get a bit too much at times and the lack of blood and carnage is a little too unbelievable and while overall this is a good film, it could have been a great film. If you have already read the book you should enjoy the film more than if you haven't.
8 out of 10 if you haven't read the book 9 out of 10 if you have read the book.
The film is about a girl Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers to fight in the Hunger Games taking the place of her younger sister. Competitors in the games are forced to fight to the death until only one is left standing.
There have been many films about people hunting people from Hard Target (1993) with Jean-Claude Van Damme to Surviving the Game (1994) staring Ice-T. The one that is most similar in style is the Japanese classic Battle Royale (2000). It also has youths forced to fight to the death, but where that film was purely designed for adults to shock and horrify you, Hunger Games is based on a book for teenagers and so is the film.
This was a very good film and for the most part it was beautifully shot. The actors in this are perfectly cast which includes Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Wes Bentley, Paula Malcomson, Amandla Stenberg & Elizabeth Banks. Once again Jennifer Lawrence is outstanding, this time as the lead. Her portrayal of Katniss Everdeen is captivating. She has a great skill in drawing the audience in and making a connection with them. As with her performance in X-Men: First Class, her skill in portraying emotions comes over amazingly.
The film is a great visual treat, with a good story. However as good as the film is, the film makers failed in the transition from book to screen.
Minor Spoilers The book is set from the perspective of Katniss who is telling the story. However this is not the case with the film. It is just a story. The film really loses a lot from changing the format. With the book you get a lot of the history of the Hunger Games and you understand what they are all about. With the film this is missed out and barely covered in a small written intro. All the film needed to do was to have Katniss telling the story at least up until the point where her sister is chosen. Her giving a background narrative over the start of the film would have made a perfect introduction. The way it was done left me as a viewer without the necessary information I felt was needed to create an emotional connection to the characters and the story. Fortunately for me I started to read the book the night before the viewing as I had read that the film was a little vague during the opening scenes. This gave me the background that unfortunately the viewers of the film wouldn't necessarily have.
Minor Spoilers end The intentionally shaky camera shots get a bit too much at times and the lack of blood and carnage is a little too unbelievable and while overall this is a good film, it could have been a great film. If you have already read the book you should enjoy the film more than if you haven't.
8 out of 10 if you haven't read the book 9 out of 10 if you have read the book.
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Wrinkle in Time (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Wrinkle in Time starts when a trouble high school student Meg (Reid) hasn’t given up hope on being reunited with her father Mr Murry (Pine) after his sudden disappearance. Meg has become closed off from the world with her adopted brother Charles Wallace (McCabe) noticing the change in her. Meg, Charles and Calvin (Miller) get visited by Mrs Whatsit (Witherspoon) that opens up the possibilities for answers.
Mrs Whatsit takes the three children on an adventure through the universe with Mrs Which (Winfrey) and Mrs Who (Kaling), who believe they can locate Mr Murry after his research has taken him across the universe unlike anyone in human history.
Thoughts on A Wrinkle in Time
Characters – Meg is an outsider teenage girl, daughter of two brilliant scientists, with her father disappeared for four years now. She went from the popular out going girl to the shy closed off one. she has never given up hope of finding her father, which does leave questions about her relationship with her mother, she gets a chance to find her father with the will she shows in her heart. Mrs Which leads the three light entities that can help Meg travel the universe to find her father, she isn’t just guiding Meg, but the newest member of the team Mrs Whatsit. Mrs Whatsit is the bubbly member of the light entities, she is on her first mission of guidance which does see her make mistakes along the way. Mrs Who is the third member of the team, she is always positive like the rest only she gets the least amount of time to do anything of the three. Mr Murry is the father that has gone missing, he is a brilliant scientist that has always believed in travel through the universe to be possible and has been searching for a way to achieve. Calvin is the high school friend of Meg that ends up on the journey, he wants to support her even when it shows his own weakness in the world.
Performances – Storm Reid is the highlight of the film which sees her going on the adventure to find her father, this is a disappointing as we do have a talent cast, only they just don’t seem to shine on the levels you would expect them to reach.
Story – The story here follows a teenage girl that gets to do on an adventure across the universe in search for her father through the powers of light entities. This is a story that has come from a popular novel and is meant to show the science behind potential travel through the universe and how the power is within us all. This is a story that just drags along, it doesn’t offer anything to the world we are entering. This story could have so much potential and ends up just glossing over too much, making it a hard watch.
Adventure/Fantasy/Sci-Fi – The adventure side of the film shows the journey that takes the children across the universe to see just where one’s father has gone, this does show us the fantasy elements of the film in the sci-fi universe we end up going along.
Settings – The film is set in a fictional land where the people can travel to unknown planets in the universe, each one has its own unique look.
Special Effects – The visual effects used to create the different worlds look beautiful, only they don’t seem to make anything feel as important to the story.
Scene of the Movie – Understand other people’s problems from behind closed doors.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – This story just doesn’t become interesting.
Final Thoughts – This is a film that had so much potential only to fall so short, it has an amazing cast that just don’t get a chance to shine, the story just doesn’t get us going like it should do.
Overall: Disappointing.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/13/a-wrinkle-in-time-2018/
Mrs Whatsit takes the three children on an adventure through the universe with Mrs Which (Winfrey) and Mrs Who (Kaling), who believe they can locate Mr Murry after his research has taken him across the universe unlike anyone in human history.
Thoughts on A Wrinkle in Time
Characters – Meg is an outsider teenage girl, daughter of two brilliant scientists, with her father disappeared for four years now. She went from the popular out going girl to the shy closed off one. she has never given up hope of finding her father, which does leave questions about her relationship with her mother, she gets a chance to find her father with the will she shows in her heart. Mrs Which leads the three light entities that can help Meg travel the universe to find her father, she isn’t just guiding Meg, but the newest member of the team Mrs Whatsit. Mrs Whatsit is the bubbly member of the light entities, she is on her first mission of guidance which does see her make mistakes along the way. Mrs Who is the third member of the team, she is always positive like the rest only she gets the least amount of time to do anything of the three. Mr Murry is the father that has gone missing, he is a brilliant scientist that has always believed in travel through the universe to be possible and has been searching for a way to achieve. Calvin is the high school friend of Meg that ends up on the journey, he wants to support her even when it shows his own weakness in the world.
Performances – Storm Reid is the highlight of the film which sees her going on the adventure to find her father, this is a disappointing as we do have a talent cast, only they just don’t seem to shine on the levels you would expect them to reach.
Story – The story here follows a teenage girl that gets to do on an adventure across the universe in search for her father through the powers of light entities. This is a story that has come from a popular novel and is meant to show the science behind potential travel through the universe and how the power is within us all. This is a story that just drags along, it doesn’t offer anything to the world we are entering. This story could have so much potential and ends up just glossing over too much, making it a hard watch.
Adventure/Fantasy/Sci-Fi – The adventure side of the film shows the journey that takes the children across the universe to see just where one’s father has gone, this does show us the fantasy elements of the film in the sci-fi universe we end up going along.
Settings – The film is set in a fictional land where the people can travel to unknown planets in the universe, each one has its own unique look.
Special Effects – The visual effects used to create the different worlds look beautiful, only they don’t seem to make anything feel as important to the story.
Scene of the Movie – Understand other people’s problems from behind closed doors.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – This story just doesn’t become interesting.
Final Thoughts – This is a film that had so much potential only to fall so short, it has an amazing cast that just don’t get a chance to shine, the story just doesn’t get us going like it should do.
Overall: Disappointing.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/13/a-wrinkle-in-time-2018/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
The top billing cast on IMDb read like my top list of reasons not to see a film. Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh and Timothée Chalamet... all are raved about by various people but all have their own quirks that I can't stand to watch on screen. Chalamet did redeem himself with The King earlier this year for Netflix but none of the others have done anything recently to sway me.
Of course here's where I have to eat my words... Saoirse Ronan as Jo gave a very solid performance in Little Women and I enjoyed her throughout the whole thing. Her scenes with Laurie (Chalamet) we particularly entertaining, if a little rollercoastery, but overall she had the right balance of forthright and funny that really helped the story progress.
We all know my feelings about Emma Watson (#notmyDisneyPrincess) and the trailer wasn't helping her case, her accent seemed to be on the dubious side in the few moments we saw. Thankfully in the full film it rounded out quite well. I still can't say I'm a fan though, while moments of her performance amused me when they should and help some power in them I couldn't help but think she still hasn't found a genre of film that suits her.
Florence Pugh's overly dramatic and divaish Amy was by far my favourite of all the sisters. While bratty and a little spoilt every piece fit together perfectly and Pugh managed to add just the right amount of childish behaviour when it was needed.
Marmee was a wonderful character to watch and Laura Dern was an excellent choice. I feel like she's having a mainstream resurgence recently and it's well deserved.
The only other cast member I want to mention is Meryl Streep, we can't ignore her in a cast list! I love Meryl (who doesn't!?) and the light humour in Aunt March's sternness is delightful, but I don't think I like seeing her play old characters. I know she's 70 but she isn't 70 in my head and that's the way she must stay.
The palette of this whole film feels very much like a vintage filter, the colours and hues all sit well with the historical setting and in the March house give a wonderful sense of homeliness. Locations, sets and costumes all back this up and it comes together for an excellent visual retelling of the classic novel.
Emotion throughout the film was always very well matched to the scenes and when that thing happens that we won't talk about... because spoilers... I found myself wanting to do a Joey and put the film in the freezer while I cried my eyes out, the scene was set up incredibly well and the symmetry was beautiful as well as heartbreaking.
With all this great stuff going on in Little Women it bugs me that I had something to quibble about. A few times during the film we get a character doing a voiceover that then transitions to them speaking at the camera... eh, no. It was so out of place with the rest of the perfectly balanced film that I looked on with a furrowed brow and wrote a grumbly comment in my notes.
Given that last issue I'm forced to make a deduction. It was difficult trying to work out what to score this, there were so many wonderful pieces and I will be seeing it again soon, but, period dramas don't tend to make it into my home rewatch list so it should have got a 4... but it really deserved the extra half.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/little-women-movie-review.html
Of course here's where I have to eat my words... Saoirse Ronan as Jo gave a very solid performance in Little Women and I enjoyed her throughout the whole thing. Her scenes with Laurie (Chalamet) we particularly entertaining, if a little rollercoastery, but overall she had the right balance of forthright and funny that really helped the story progress.
We all know my feelings about Emma Watson (#notmyDisneyPrincess) and the trailer wasn't helping her case, her accent seemed to be on the dubious side in the few moments we saw. Thankfully in the full film it rounded out quite well. I still can't say I'm a fan though, while moments of her performance amused me when they should and help some power in them I couldn't help but think she still hasn't found a genre of film that suits her.
Florence Pugh's overly dramatic and divaish Amy was by far my favourite of all the sisters. While bratty and a little spoilt every piece fit together perfectly and Pugh managed to add just the right amount of childish behaviour when it was needed.
Marmee was a wonderful character to watch and Laura Dern was an excellent choice. I feel like she's having a mainstream resurgence recently and it's well deserved.
The only other cast member I want to mention is Meryl Streep, we can't ignore her in a cast list! I love Meryl (who doesn't!?) and the light humour in Aunt March's sternness is delightful, but I don't think I like seeing her play old characters. I know she's 70 but she isn't 70 in my head and that's the way she must stay.
The palette of this whole film feels very much like a vintage filter, the colours and hues all sit well with the historical setting and in the March house give a wonderful sense of homeliness. Locations, sets and costumes all back this up and it comes together for an excellent visual retelling of the classic novel.
Emotion throughout the film was always very well matched to the scenes and when that thing happens that we won't talk about... because spoilers... I found myself wanting to do a Joey and put the film in the freezer while I cried my eyes out, the scene was set up incredibly well and the symmetry was beautiful as well as heartbreaking.
With all this great stuff going on in Little Women it bugs me that I had something to quibble about. A few times during the film we get a character doing a voiceover that then transitions to them speaking at the camera... eh, no. It was so out of place with the rest of the perfectly balanced film that I looked on with a furrowed brow and wrote a grumbly comment in my notes.
Given that last issue I'm forced to make a deduction. It was difficult trying to work out what to score this, there were so many wonderful pieces and I will be seeing it again soon, but, period dramas don't tend to make it into my home rewatch list so it should have got a 4... but it really deserved the extra half.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/little-women-movie-review.html
Audio Books by Audiobooks
Book and Entertainment
App
Wish you could read more but don’t have the time? You’ll love audiobooks! Audiobooks.com is the...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Sin City (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In a dazzling blend of muted color, violence, and eroticism Frank Millers graphic novel Sin City has burst upon the screen with a visual style that is as diverse as the star studded cast that drives it.
Set in the fictional Basin City, the film is a series of segments that weave in and around each other to tell various stories and side plots without a clear cut beginning and end as the conclusion of one segment often mirrors portions of the events in another.
While the film does not have a linear plot in the traditional sense, each segment is a snapshot of life in Basin City and how it is viewed by the various people that dwell within. It does not take a genius to see that the city is rife with all manner of unsavory characters from child molesters to cannibals. Basin City is also a place where people are not always the sum of their parts as a violent and disfigured thug named Marv (Mickey Rourke) can show humanity and compassion as he attempts to avenge those who were wronged. It is a place where a person with a dubious past and a new face named Dwight (Clive Owen), is town between the life he left behind and his desire to protect those who are in danger.
The film is chocked full of dialogue that is reminiscent of classic pulp novels and comics of the 40’s and 50’s where characters were often as two dimensional as the pages in which their exploits were chronicled. While this at first seems awkward and hokey it tends to grow on you as it is an accurate reflection of the locales and inhabitants that comprise the city.
While most of the film is shot in a black and white style, there are flashes of color that make a gripping contrast to the usually blank characters. Examples of which are seen in many of the films violent action sequences where blood and other gore are used for artistic effect. In one example, graphic shooting segments are left in a muted black and white allowing us to see the gore in a muted sense. The impact of the scene is not lost but it is rendered in an artistic and unique manner that is amazing to see. While you should be horrified at what you see, you find yourself captivated by the clever color and camera work that is used to render the scene. At other times, the crimson color of blood is used to emphasize a scene and illustrate and illuminate a character.
If this sounds confusing, it is due to the fact that to many “Sin City”, is a film that is a unique looking film, that has a pacing and style all its own, and does not play by the traditional rules for a film. While films such as “Heavy Metal” and “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow” have brought graphic novels and visually unique pulp stories to the screen, it is the constant adherence to the source material, and directors Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, and Quentin Tarantinos ability to blend their unique styles seamlessly that makes this film interesting.
The action of the film is very well choreographed and despite being very, very graphic in places, it nonetheless entertains and rarely seems gratuitous. The film also has a surprising amount of comedy as there were several moments that caused the audience at my press screening to erupt.
While it does not offer much in the way of plot or acting, the performances are appropriate to the characters and settings .The all-star cast does a great job in conveying the motivations of their characters as the audience is given just what the need to know about a character to make the segments work.
While the film may not appeal to a mass audience due to the unique look and structure of the film, fans of Tarantino and Rodriguez are likely to embrace this film which should likely result in further adventures in Basin City sometime in the near future.
Set in the fictional Basin City, the film is a series of segments that weave in and around each other to tell various stories and side plots without a clear cut beginning and end as the conclusion of one segment often mirrors portions of the events in another.
While the film does not have a linear plot in the traditional sense, each segment is a snapshot of life in Basin City and how it is viewed by the various people that dwell within. It does not take a genius to see that the city is rife with all manner of unsavory characters from child molesters to cannibals. Basin City is also a place where people are not always the sum of their parts as a violent and disfigured thug named Marv (Mickey Rourke) can show humanity and compassion as he attempts to avenge those who were wronged. It is a place where a person with a dubious past and a new face named Dwight (Clive Owen), is town between the life he left behind and his desire to protect those who are in danger.
The film is chocked full of dialogue that is reminiscent of classic pulp novels and comics of the 40’s and 50’s where characters were often as two dimensional as the pages in which their exploits were chronicled. While this at first seems awkward and hokey it tends to grow on you as it is an accurate reflection of the locales and inhabitants that comprise the city.
While most of the film is shot in a black and white style, there are flashes of color that make a gripping contrast to the usually blank characters. Examples of which are seen in many of the films violent action sequences where blood and other gore are used for artistic effect. In one example, graphic shooting segments are left in a muted black and white allowing us to see the gore in a muted sense. The impact of the scene is not lost but it is rendered in an artistic and unique manner that is amazing to see. While you should be horrified at what you see, you find yourself captivated by the clever color and camera work that is used to render the scene. At other times, the crimson color of blood is used to emphasize a scene and illustrate and illuminate a character.
If this sounds confusing, it is due to the fact that to many “Sin City”, is a film that is a unique looking film, that has a pacing and style all its own, and does not play by the traditional rules for a film. While films such as “Heavy Metal” and “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow” have brought graphic novels and visually unique pulp stories to the screen, it is the constant adherence to the source material, and directors Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, and Quentin Tarantinos ability to blend their unique styles seamlessly that makes this film interesting.
The action of the film is very well choreographed and despite being very, very graphic in places, it nonetheless entertains and rarely seems gratuitous. The film also has a surprising amount of comedy as there were several moments that caused the audience at my press screening to erupt.
While it does not offer much in the way of plot or acting, the performances are appropriate to the characters and settings .The all-star cast does a great job in conveying the motivations of their characters as the audience is given just what the need to know about a character to make the segments work.
While the film may not appeal to a mass audience due to the unique look and structure of the film, fans of Tarantino and Rodriguez are likely to embrace this film which should likely result in further adventures in Basin City sometime in the near future.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Jul 28, 2021
Cinematography and Sound Design - very Hitchcockian (1 more)
Concept and initial set-up of the movie
Dafter than the Dharma initiative.
"Old" is the latest from the gloriously inconsistent writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Will this be great Shyamalan (à la "The Sixth Sense") or dire Shyamalan (à la "The Last Airbender")? The answer, in my view, is somewhere in the middle. It's a curate's egg of a movie.
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
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 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Following the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was going to be no easy feat. The series not only made incredible amounts of cash at the box office worldwide, but also garnered an Academy award for best picture for the final film in the series. In the years since the trilogy, writer-director-producer Peter Jackson has not overwhelmed at the box office. His big-budget remake of “King Kong” performed below expectations and the high-profile collapse of the “Halo” movie to which he was attached, as well as the underwhelming box office of “The Lovely Bones” made many people question if Jackson had peaked and was better suited for the lower budgeted independent films that first gave him his start.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
When it was announced that a film version of “The Hobbit” was in the works and that director Guillermo del Toro would direct the film as well as help write the screenplay and that Jackson would produce, the fans’ interest level was definitely piqued. But after a long state of pre-production, del Torro decided not to direct the film as he was unwilling to commit the next six years to living and working in New Zealand. Jackson then took over the film and soon after it was announced that it would be stretched into three movies to form a new trilogy.
For those unfamiliar with the story it was actually the first book written by J.R.R. Tolkien, which sets the stage for what was to follow in the Lord of the Rings even though it was originally conceived as a standalone story. The film opens with an older Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), writing a memoir while preparations for a party are underway. Bilbo discusses how there was one story that he had not disclosed and sets pen to paper in order to chronicle his legendary journey 60 years prior.
Gandolf Wizard (Sir Ian McKellen) visits the younger Bilbo and suggests he go on an adventure. Bilbo immediately declines, as being a Hobbit, he has no desire to leave the creature comforts and serenity of The Shire, much less face the dangers that exist in the world beyond. A group of dwarves arrive’ that evening and despite their gluttonous appetites and loud behavior, Bilbo has a change of heart the following morning and accompanies them on their quest.
The group’s goal is to travel to the dwarves’ kingdom of Erebor to reclaim their stronghold which was lost many years earlier to a vicious Dragon named Smaug. In the decades since, the dwarves existed as people without a home, forced to live as nomads taking work wherever they can find it. Along the way the group deals with all manner of threats and dangers ranging from trolls, goblins, orcs, and other supernatural elements. Of course there were some internal tensions and conflicts within the group as it marched towards a finale that sets the stage for the next film.
The movie has a runtime of nearly 3 hours and there were times that I caught a couple members in press row dozing briefly. While I enjoyed the film more than I did any of the Lord of the Rings movies, it was clearly obvious that things were being stretched out in order to justify a third film in the series. There were countless scenes of the band walking over hills and across the countryside so much so that at times I felt that I was watching the longest commercial for New Zealand tourism ever created. We get it. It’s a long journey. They travel near and far. I got it. I don’t need to see it every 10 minutes.
There were also several scenes that were done almost as if in aside that truthfully did not add much to the story but seem to exist as nothing more than time fillers. In the subsequent films it is learned that characters and scenes that did not appear in the book will be inserted into the film. Once again I have to question this as I do believe they could have easily cut an hour out of this movie and not lose much of the necessary narrative.
There’s been a lot of talk about the higher frame rate 3-D that was used to create the film. There have been claims that it was distracting, jerky, and detracted from the movie. I on the other hand found it absolutely captivating because it did not have that movie look to it, and it felt like I was watching an HD television. Even during the CGI heavy sequences, it did appear as if the performers were literally right there in front of me and I got the impression more of watching a play than of watching a movie.
The visual effects in the film were quite stunning. The live-action and computer-generated elements were absolutely amazing, especially during the latter part of the film when we meet Gollum (Andy Serkis), and during the battle and the goblin stronghold. Although the book is considered a children’s novel, I would really have to think twice about bringing young children to see this film as there is a lot of action and violence in the film as well as potential scares in the form of the monsters that abound.
The film could have definitely used some star power to it. While the cast does a solid job, they are fairly generic and almost interchangeable during certain segments of the film. That being said, the film works because despite its issues, it’s a visually spectacular masterpiece that, if you can endure the long periods of inaction, pays off especially well during the film’s battle sequences.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Dec 20, 2017 (Updated Dec 21, 2017)
Excellent performances (2 more)
Standout awesome moments
SFX
Huge plot holes (1 more)
Wasted potential
Not Your Grandpa's Star Wars
Contains spoilers, click to show
DISCLAIMER: This review will contain spoilers from the start and throughout. If you haven't seen the movie yet, then go read someone else's review and come back to mine once you have seen it.
This is a year for great controversies and Star Wars is not exempt from this rule. I get that Rian Johnson was going for something different, but damn! This movie was not what I expected. In a way, this is a good thing, as fans were left surprised at the decisions made in the movie, however not all of the surprising decisions were made for the better.
Let's go through what I did like. First off, the performances all around were brilliant, with the stand outs being Adam Driver and Mark Hamill. Adam driver plays a conflicted and tortured, yet exceedingly powerful Kylo Ren. His performance is electric throughout the movie and as an actor, his range is extremely impressive. Although this is probably my least favourite portrayal of Luke Skywalker in a Star Wars movie, it is probably my favourite performance of Mark Hamill playing the iconic character. He commits to the odd decisions that Johnson makes with integrity and grit and it is clear that he has honed his skills as an actor in the 30+ years since the original trilogy.
The special effects and CGI work in the movie was astonishing and breath-taking, the movie is a joy to look at on a visual level and the technical achievement of some of the shots featured is nothing short of incredible. There were also several moments throughout the film where I was on the edge of my seat, moments that were so cool to see unfold that I felt like a kid again watching Star Wars for the very first time.
Okay, now onto the issues I had with the movie. First off, the whole Casino planet section of the movie, you can just remove it. Ignore it, it has no bearing to the overall plot and if it wasn't included, the movie would still play out in the exact same way. The entire segment is a waste of time and the end result isn't even worth the hassle. Finn was one of my favourite character in Force Awakens, so it was good to see him get his own storyline here, but the awkward moments and lack of payoff made it such a waste of time for the audience. Rose, the new character that they introduced to be Finn's sidekick and potential love interest was god-awful. Hers was probably the single worst performance in the entire movie. The shoehorned message about animal cruelty also felt too forced and cringe-inducing and that's coming from an animal lover. The whole sequence also brought back horrible memories of the prequels, which is something that I never want to be reminded of again.
The other dumb subplot in this movie revolves around Poe and a new character played by Laura Dern called Admiral Holdo. At the start of the movie the Rebels are shocked to discover that the Empire can track them through light speed and then the slowest space chase ever ensues, with the Empire waiting until the Rebels to run out of fuel before blowing them up. In the meantime, Kylo Ren and a squad of bombers attack the rebel ship up close. During the attack, the control deck that Leia is on is blown up. Leia survives, but is incapacitated for the middle act of the movie and Admiral Holdo is put in charge. Poe asks her over and over what the plan is and she refuses to tell him, labelling him as a hothead flyboy. He eventually decides he can't just sit around and do nothing while their ship is destroyed, (this is also the catalyst for Finn and Rose going on their dumb mission to the casino planet,) and so he enacts a mutiny on Holdo. Then Leia wakes up and reveals that the plan all along was to take the escape pods to a nearby planet containing an old rebel base and attempt a last stand there. This whole mutiny could have been avoided with a simple conversation, or even a goddamn post-it note.
The other thing that bothered me was the lack of scenes showing Rey being trained by Luke. There are two brief scenes of her training and that is apparently enough to allow her to become a 'jedi.' Instead of following Finn and Rose on their pointless adventure, or Poe and his pointless mutiny, we should have spent the majority of the movie on Luke's island. I also don't know why they chose to portray Luke as such a slob. This is the guy that blew up the Death Star and spearheaded the rebellion that changed the tide of war across the entire galaxy and now he's milking weird sloth creatures for food.
I didn't hate the reveal that Rey's parents were nobodies that came from nothing, but it just makes all of the set up in Force Awakens and in the first half of this movie seem like such a waste of everyone's time. I also thought that they squandered something that could have been interesting with how they just nonchalantly killed Snoke. With the age he looked and his torn up face, this guy has clearly been around for a long time, like probably as long as Yoda or Vader, so how come we have we never seen him over the course of the previous eight films? Was he in hiding? If so, then why was he in hiding? Why did he come out of hiding after the Empire fell and why was he appointed as Supreme Leader? I guess we will never know the answer to these questions after he was unceremoniously cut in half, or maybe we will find out in a comic or a novel. Not quite the epic revelation we expected for this character.
Lastly, I want to talk about Phasma. Rian Johnson has joked that she is like this trilogy's version of Kenny from South Park at this point and frankly I think that this is a valid comparison and I don't think that it's something to joke about. Gwendoline Christie is a phenomenal actress and she is so wasted in these movies. Her Bulletproof armour was pretty cool, but even that opens a ton of plot holes: why isn't all of the Stormtrooper armour made from the same stuff? If her armour is bulletproof, then why did she go along with Finn and Han's plan to shut down the shields on Starkiller Base in The Force Awakens? Sure Finn had a blaster pointed at her head, but we know now that the bolt would have just bounced off.
Overall, there was so much wasted potential in this movie. Rey's potentially interesting heritage was wasted, Snoke's potentially interesting backstory was wasted, Phasma was wasted again. Fiin and Poe were wasted on pointless side-quests and we should have seen Rey's awesome training montage to become a master jedi. Also, with Luke's lacklustre death at the end of the film, it feels like he was wasted too. There were some great moments in the film and I feel like I have to see it again to solidify my opinions, but to be honest, I can totally see why this movie is dividing fans.
This is a year for great controversies and Star Wars is not exempt from this rule. I get that Rian Johnson was going for something different, but damn! This movie was not what I expected. In a way, this is a good thing, as fans were left surprised at the decisions made in the movie, however not all of the surprising decisions were made for the better.
Let's go through what I did like. First off, the performances all around were brilliant, with the stand outs being Adam Driver and Mark Hamill. Adam driver plays a conflicted and tortured, yet exceedingly powerful Kylo Ren. His performance is electric throughout the movie and as an actor, his range is extremely impressive. Although this is probably my least favourite portrayal of Luke Skywalker in a Star Wars movie, it is probably my favourite performance of Mark Hamill playing the iconic character. He commits to the odd decisions that Johnson makes with integrity and grit and it is clear that he has honed his skills as an actor in the 30+ years since the original trilogy.
The special effects and CGI work in the movie was astonishing and breath-taking, the movie is a joy to look at on a visual level and the technical achievement of some of the shots featured is nothing short of incredible. There were also several moments throughout the film where I was on the edge of my seat, moments that were so cool to see unfold that I felt like a kid again watching Star Wars for the very first time.
Okay, now onto the issues I had with the movie. First off, the whole Casino planet section of the movie, you can just remove it. Ignore it, it has no bearing to the overall plot and if it wasn't included, the movie would still play out in the exact same way. The entire segment is a waste of time and the end result isn't even worth the hassle. Finn was one of my favourite character in Force Awakens, so it was good to see him get his own storyline here, but the awkward moments and lack of payoff made it such a waste of time for the audience. Rose, the new character that they introduced to be Finn's sidekick and potential love interest was god-awful. Hers was probably the single worst performance in the entire movie. The shoehorned message about animal cruelty also felt too forced and cringe-inducing and that's coming from an animal lover. The whole sequence also brought back horrible memories of the prequels, which is something that I never want to be reminded of again.
The other dumb subplot in this movie revolves around Poe and a new character played by Laura Dern called Admiral Holdo. At the start of the movie the Rebels are shocked to discover that the Empire can track them through light speed and then the slowest space chase ever ensues, with the Empire waiting until the Rebels to run out of fuel before blowing them up. In the meantime, Kylo Ren and a squad of bombers attack the rebel ship up close. During the attack, the control deck that Leia is on is blown up. Leia survives, but is incapacitated for the middle act of the movie and Admiral Holdo is put in charge. Poe asks her over and over what the plan is and she refuses to tell him, labelling him as a hothead flyboy. He eventually decides he can't just sit around and do nothing while their ship is destroyed, (this is also the catalyst for Finn and Rose going on their dumb mission to the casino planet,) and so he enacts a mutiny on Holdo. Then Leia wakes up and reveals that the plan all along was to take the escape pods to a nearby planet containing an old rebel base and attempt a last stand there. This whole mutiny could have been avoided with a simple conversation, or even a goddamn post-it note.
The other thing that bothered me was the lack of scenes showing Rey being trained by Luke. There are two brief scenes of her training and that is apparently enough to allow her to become a 'jedi.' Instead of following Finn and Rose on their pointless adventure, or Poe and his pointless mutiny, we should have spent the majority of the movie on Luke's island. I also don't know why they chose to portray Luke as such a slob. This is the guy that blew up the Death Star and spearheaded the rebellion that changed the tide of war across the entire galaxy and now he's milking weird sloth creatures for food.
I didn't hate the reveal that Rey's parents were nobodies that came from nothing, but it just makes all of the set up in Force Awakens and in the first half of this movie seem like such a waste of everyone's time. I also thought that they squandered something that could have been interesting with how they just nonchalantly killed Snoke. With the age he looked and his torn up face, this guy has clearly been around for a long time, like probably as long as Yoda or Vader, so how come we have we never seen him over the course of the previous eight films? Was he in hiding? If so, then why was he in hiding? Why did he come out of hiding after the Empire fell and why was he appointed as Supreme Leader? I guess we will never know the answer to these questions after he was unceremoniously cut in half, or maybe we will find out in a comic or a novel. Not quite the epic revelation we expected for this character.
Lastly, I want to talk about Phasma. Rian Johnson has joked that she is like this trilogy's version of Kenny from South Park at this point and frankly I think that this is a valid comparison and I don't think that it's something to joke about. Gwendoline Christie is a phenomenal actress and she is so wasted in these movies. Her Bulletproof armour was pretty cool, but even that opens a ton of plot holes: why isn't all of the Stormtrooper armour made from the same stuff? If her armour is bulletproof, then why did she go along with Finn and Han's plan to shut down the shields on Starkiller Base in The Force Awakens? Sure Finn had a blaster pointed at her head, but we know now that the bolt would have just bounced off.
Overall, there was so much wasted potential in this movie. Rey's potentially interesting heritage was wasted, Snoke's potentially interesting backstory was wasted, Phasma was wasted again. Fiin and Poe were wasted on pointless side-quests and we should have seen Rey's awesome training montage to become a master jedi. Also, with Luke's lacklustre death at the end of the film, it feels like he was wasted too. There were some great moments in the film and I feel like I have to see it again to solidify my opinions, but to be honest, I can totally see why this movie is dividing fans.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014) in Movies
Jun 28, 2019 (Updated Jun 28, 2019)
Liam Neeson puts in a commanding performance and is a natural as a detective. (2 more)
The film has great visual flair and creates an effectively dark and moody atmosphere.
The solid supporting cast strengthen an otherwise dull and derivative film.
The heavy graphic content of rape, mutilation, and murder is extremely off-putting. (1 more)
There's not a single likeable character to be found in the whole movie.
A Walk Among the Tombstones is unsettling but never really all that compelling. It's a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of it may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence.
After watching A Walk Among the Tombstones, I literally felt like I was going to puke. This mystery-thriller, based on Lawrence Block’s popular novel, is a gross and grisly foray into the criminal underworld in search of sadistic kidnappers. Director Scott Frank paints a portrait of a dark and twisted 1990s New York City where women are disappearing, only to later show up chopped into pieces. The film is grim without remorse or reason, and if you’re anything like me, you’ll be eager for it to end so you can wash your hands of it entirely. It stars Liam Neeson as an unlicensed private detective named Matthew Scudder who leads an investigation to find the people responsible for these horrific murders. While it may appear from the trailers to be another entry in Neeson’s growing lineup of ass-kicking action-thrillers, it’s actually far from it. A Walk Among the Tombstones plays out more like a brooding, slow-paced horror film. If you’re expecting Taken, then you’re walking right into the wrong movie.
Neeson’s character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since he’s no longer affiliated with the police, he’s an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealer’s wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealer’s wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue there’s not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. It’s hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. They’re reduced to the point where it’s hard to see them as anything more than the killers’ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killers’ unspeakable crimes. The film’s dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time he’s on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, he’s not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but he’s still an intimidating guy you’d be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We don’t ever get to know much about them or their motives. They’re sick, demented people that aren’t given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, there’s no question that they’re believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudder’s help. There’s also Brian “Astro” Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while he’s truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the film’s gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New York’s underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the film’s graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. It’s sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesn’t work and ends up detracting from the film’s most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe it’s best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, it’s never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldn’t have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While I’m sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally don’t have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)
Neeson’s character Matt Scudder is a former alcoholic and an ex-cop turned personal private investigator who works in exchange for favors. Since he’s no longer affiliated with the police, he’s an appealing person to turn to for those who need help but want to keep the cops out of the picture. When a drug dealer’s wife is kidnapped and savagely murdered, he seeks out Scudder for help. What follows is in an investigation into the murder that links up to the murder of another drug dealer’s wife. With the killers still at large, Scudder is determined to catch them before they can strike again.
Being that Scudder is working with criminals to find even worse criminals, the characters in A Walk Among the Tombstones are quite despicable. In fact, I would argue there’s not a single likeable character in the whole film. Even our protagonist Scudder is a shady person with a corrupt past. It’s hard to care about anyone here except for the poor abducted women, and yet we never get to know any of them. They’re reduced to the point where it’s hard to see them as anything more than the killers’ unlucky victims who have no chance of surviving. We follow Scudder through this twisted investigation not because we care about him, but for their sake of these women, with the hope that our detective hero can put an end to these killers’ unspeakable crimes. The film’s dreadful cast of characters give an incredibly bleak and hopeless outlook on people as a whole.
Liam Neeson gives a suitable performance as Scudder, fitting into the role of a detective quite naturally. As usual, he has a great presence and commands your attention any time he’s on screen. In A Walk Among the Tombstones, he’s not nearly the unstoppable action-hero he has been in his other recent films, but he’s still an intimidating guy you’d be wise not to mess with. He does actually have a couple tense conversations with the killers over the phone that are reminiscent of the famous scene in Taken, but certainly not as memorable.
The killers in the movie happen to be far more appalling than interesting. We don’t ever get to know much about them or their motives. They’re sick, demented people that aren’t given much more depth than being bad for the sake of being bad. However, there’s no question that they’re believably haunting and deranged. Despite their limited screen time and lack of complexity, their actors put in truly unnerving performances.
The film is well-acted throughout, with a few especially notable performances from supporting characters. Olafur Darri Olafsson is terrific as the creepy cemetery groundskeeper, and Eric Nelsen does a commendable job as the drug addict younger brother of the drug dealer who sought Scudder’s help. There’s also Brian “Astro” Bradley as a homeless teenager named TJ that Scudder befriends, who volunteers himself to be his crime-solving partner. Astro at times lightens up the moody film with his charm, and while he’s truly the only character that offers any sense of hope in the film’s gritty world, I think his character largely feels out of place as an unnecessary inclusion.
Scott Frank effectively creates a dark and sullen atmosphere in his movie that is also visually striking. He turns New York’s underbelly into a stylishly gloomy city where its seedy citizens can run rampant. He demonstrates proficiency behind the camera, building eeriness and suspense. However, he goes too far with the film’s graphic sexual content, which includes rape, torture, and mutilation. While he never gives you a very clear look at these heinous acts, he puts you right there in the moment and lets the camera linger. It’s sadistic, cruel, and very disturbing to watch. In a bizarre directorial decision, he has the 12 steps to recovery from Alcoholics Anonymous narrated over the climax of the film. Considering Scudder regularly attends AA meetings to celebrate his sobriety, I can understand why it was included, but it just doesn’t work and ends up detracting from the film’s most heightened sequences. He also disappointingly finishes the movie on a bad note with a conclusion that is drawn out far too long and which contains a weak, conventional ending that is completely forgettable.
A Walk Among the Tombstones raises more questions than it answers, but in a movie this morbid, maybe it’s best not to know. While the movie excels at being unsettling, it’s never really all that compelling. Filled with plenty of bad dialogue and characters that are hard to relate to and care about, I was yearning for this one to end so I wouldn’t have to endure any more of its vileness. Even with all the disturbing content aside, I would argue that the film is still only average at best. While I’m sure there are plenty of people with a penchant for the macabre that will enjoy the film, I am certainly not one of them and I left the theater feeling completely disturbed by what I had just watched. A Walk Among the Tombstones is a decent detective movie, but your enjoyment of the film may depend on how well you can handle its grimy setting and extreme violence. One thing that I can assure you is that I personally don’t have the stomach for it.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 9.20.14.)