Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Overlord (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
You say zombie and I'm sold. No matter how serious they are they're still pretty funny, usually unintentionally. I'm not sure what it says about me when I laugh at someone fighting a zombie to the death/re-death but I can't help it... it's too daft not to!
I thought the trailer for Overlord was very good. Specifically the point where Boyce looks into that hole in the wall. We all knew there was something freaky in there and yet they didn't try and scare us with it. It certainly left me intrigued, but my main hope for this was that it would be better than Red-Con 1.
I enjoyed the retro feel opening sequence with the voice over. It really did go a long way to making the time period of the movie come across. But my joy was short lived because of the sheer volume of what came next. I could feel it in my stomach. Technically it was quite effective as I imagine it resembles the feeling of being in the plane quite well, but my god did it make me feel queasy. What then developed in this scene was incredibly difficult to watch, again, on point for what was happening but not ideal for the viewer. Almost everything happening on screen was rendered obsolete by the chaos.
This is then followed by a mid-air sequence that basically feels like audience participation. Boyce is in freefall. It's strange and fake... yes, I know it IS fake, but I've seen enough films do that sort of airborn story line to know it can produce great results.
Despite those issues his eventual arrival on solid ground rounds out the beginning of the film nicely.
Overlord does show one of my favourite movie character faux pas. Never have dreams. Bad things will happen to you. If you're in a life threatening situation give up on every hope you have for your future and just focus on making it through the next 2 hours of your life.
The supernatural side of the film presents you with two very different types of zombies. Chloe's aunt is a classic wheezing zombie, mooching around just being a little creepy, and the ones we encounter in the bunker are much more rage filled. Being that they are mostly born of experiments it makes me wonder if calling this a zombie movie is entirely accurate.
There is what I would call a classic take from a B-movie hidden within the German bunker. Part of me hopes that somewhere within the magic of movie timelines that this is actually the pre-cursor to Fiend Without A Face. But to be making any suggestions that this itself is a B-movie would be entirely misplaced.
The effects are generally well done. We see a transformation brought about by the German's serum which is the first time the characters have witnessed it. The only thing that let the scene down for me was the change of the character's actual character. That felt more unnatural than what happened to them.
Where there's good, there's also bad. The effect's are tainted by Two-Face. He makes a very creepy inclusion but because of the extent of the damage it looks a tad ridiculous in the action sequences. There were ways around it, they could have given him a different injury or a mask, but the latter would have possibly taken you into Captain America and Wonder Woman territory.
One thing I seriously think about this film is that they should make a second one. Not a sequel. Make this a second film. Keep Overlord as it is but also make a war film. Everything up until the creepy bits was a really solid start. It would only need a few tweaks to the bunker scenes to make them less sci-fi and the whole thing would make a great 15 certificate production.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, probably more of a lad's night out sort of thing. (I'm not trying to be sexist there, it was literally me and 14 blokes watching it.) It certainly doesn't feel like you completely wasted your time seeing it, so give it a go sometime.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
When it comes to zombies I'd much rather have Ed from Shaun Of The Dead than any of these ones, so if it's possible to get that serum concoction for super strength without the creepy side effects then I'll go for that please.
I thought the trailer for Overlord was very good. Specifically the point where Boyce looks into that hole in the wall. We all knew there was something freaky in there and yet they didn't try and scare us with it. It certainly left me intrigued, but my main hope for this was that it would be better than Red-Con 1.
I enjoyed the retro feel opening sequence with the voice over. It really did go a long way to making the time period of the movie come across. But my joy was short lived because of the sheer volume of what came next. I could feel it in my stomach. Technically it was quite effective as I imagine it resembles the feeling of being in the plane quite well, but my god did it make me feel queasy. What then developed in this scene was incredibly difficult to watch, again, on point for what was happening but not ideal for the viewer. Almost everything happening on screen was rendered obsolete by the chaos.
This is then followed by a mid-air sequence that basically feels like audience participation. Boyce is in freefall. It's strange and fake... yes, I know it IS fake, but I've seen enough films do that sort of airborn story line to know it can produce great results.
Despite those issues his eventual arrival on solid ground rounds out the beginning of the film nicely.
Overlord does show one of my favourite movie character faux pas. Never have dreams. Bad things will happen to you. If you're in a life threatening situation give up on every hope you have for your future and just focus on making it through the next 2 hours of your life.
The supernatural side of the film presents you with two very different types of zombies. Chloe's aunt is a classic wheezing zombie, mooching around just being a little creepy, and the ones we encounter in the bunker are much more rage filled. Being that they are mostly born of experiments it makes me wonder if calling this a zombie movie is entirely accurate.
There is what I would call a classic take from a B-movie hidden within the German bunker. Part of me hopes that somewhere within the magic of movie timelines that this is actually the pre-cursor to Fiend Without A Face. But to be making any suggestions that this itself is a B-movie would be entirely misplaced.
The effects are generally well done. We see a transformation brought about by the German's serum which is the first time the characters have witnessed it. The only thing that let the scene down for me was the change of the character's actual character. That felt more unnatural than what happened to them.
Where there's good, there's also bad. The effect's are tainted by Two-Face. He makes a very creepy inclusion but because of the extent of the damage it looks a tad ridiculous in the action sequences. There were ways around it, they could have given him a different injury or a mask, but the latter would have possibly taken you into Captain America and Wonder Woman territory.
One thing I seriously think about this film is that they should make a second one. Not a sequel. Make this a second film. Keep Overlord as it is but also make a war film. Everything up until the creepy bits was a really solid start. It would only need a few tweaks to the bunker scenes to make them less sci-fi and the whole thing would make a great 15 certificate production.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, probably more of a lad's night out sort of thing. (I'm not trying to be sexist there, it was literally me and 14 blokes watching it.) It certainly doesn't feel like you completely wasted your time seeing it, so give it a go sometime.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
When it comes to zombies I'd much rather have Ed from Shaun Of The Dead than any of these ones, so if it's possible to get that serum concoction for super strength without the creepy side effects then I'll go for that please.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Extraction (2020) in Movies
May 6, 2020
Fun, by-the-book, action flick
I'm pretty sure that no matter what, I was going to enjoy the Chris Hemsworth action flick EXTRACTION whether it was good or not. It is, after all, a NEW movie, albeit one that was made "Direct to Netflix", so those can be of lesser quality.
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Sep 6, 2021
Good casting, Scarlett and Florence felt like actual sisters. (1 more)
Good chemistry and acting from David Harbour and Rachel Weisz.
Not much of a thriller or thinker for a spy movie. (1 more)
One actor was greatly wasted in their role.
Scarlett's Swan Song Had Plenty of Action With A Decent StoryNatasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and her sister Yelena (Florence Pugh) are living what seems like a normal life in 1995 Ohio, with their parents, mother, Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz) and
Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and her sister Yelena (Florence Pugh) are living what seems like a normal life in 1995 Ohio, with their parents, mother, Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz) and father, Alexei Shostakov (David Harbour) when suddenly they must leave the country. They are all Russian undercover agents and Alexei, the super-soldier known as Red Guardian, has stolen intel from S.H.I.E.L.D. They flee to Cuba where the sisters are forcibly taken to the "Red Room" for training after they've met General Dreykov (Ray Winstone), their boss. Now in 2016 after the events of Captain America: Civil War, Natasha finds herself a fugitive on the run from U.S. Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) after violating the Sokovia Accords. She's attacked by an incredibly skilled assassin called the Taskmaster and finds that she's not his target but rather a package she had with her. After learning the package originated from Budapest she heads there where she finds her sister Yelena and learns of a plot that not only jeopardizes the safety of those trained in the "Red Room" but possibly the whole world.
This movie was really good and it was great to see a Marvel movie again. I didn't see this one in theaters but I still enjoyed watching it in the safety of my home with my family. So this movie came off like a really good spy/action movie but definitely had that Marvel feel to it. It really felt like watching something out of the Bourne or Bond series films but with admittedly less plot and gadgets, but the action was really spot on. There was awesome car chase scenes and expertly crafted fight choreography too. It was even reported that they went through 13 BMW X3's for the car chase scene with Scarlett and Florence so you can tell that they really wanted to get things right and had a vision of what they wanted the audience to see for that particular scene as well. I thought there was really great chemistry from all the actors together and that it was pretty good casting. Scarlett and Florence argue throughout the film just like real sisters, and the looks that David Harbour and Rachel Weisz exchange feel like they were genuinely together. The opening scene of the movie had great acting and was very emotional. I just feel like one role/actor was kind of a bad casting and/or was greatly underutilized. I think the biggest flaw of the move was that for being a spy movie, the plot never had any mystery to it and everything was kind of predictable or at least very easy to follow. Not much of a thriller or thinker where you had to put two and two together. The cinematography was spot on and felt like you were watching any big budget spy or action movie and on par with what you expect from Marvel Studios. The tone fit the film for the most part but kind of "see-saw"-ed from time to time as they mixed serious themes with comedic dialogue throughout. But that's to be expected from a PG-13 action/spy movie from Marvel and it was a little reminiscent of the film Captain America in that regard. The music was good and there were a couple of songs that stuck out in that regard American Pie by Don Mclean and a cover of Smells Like Teen Spirit by Think Up Anger; also Cheap Thrills by Sia. The musical score was also good and the Black Widow theme was pretty epic but also with hints of melancholy to it that seemed to underline both her tragic background as well as the tragedy of the events to come in her future. Altogether the movie was really good and I give it a 7/10. If you are big time into the MCU and Marvel franchise movies then this is a must see film but if not then it might come off as just a barely above average action/spy film so that's why it doesn't get my "Must See Seal of Approval"
This movie was really good and it was great to see a Marvel movie again. I didn't see this one in theaters but I still enjoyed watching it in the safety of my home with my family. So this movie came off like a really good spy/action movie but definitely had that Marvel feel to it. It really felt like watching something out of the Bourne or Bond series films but with admittedly less plot and gadgets, but the action was really spot on. There was awesome car chase scenes and expertly crafted fight choreography too. It was even reported that they went through 13 BMW X3's for the car chase scene with Scarlett and Florence so you can tell that they really wanted to get things right and had a vision of what they wanted the audience to see for that particular scene as well. I thought there was really great chemistry from all the actors together and that it was pretty good casting. Scarlett and Florence argue throughout the film just like real sisters, and the looks that David Harbour and Rachel Weisz exchange feel like they were genuinely together. The opening scene of the movie had great acting and was very emotional. I just feel like one role/actor was kind of a bad casting and/or was greatly underutilized. I think the biggest flaw of the move was that for being a spy movie, the plot never had any mystery to it and everything was kind of predictable or at least very easy to follow. Not much of a thriller or thinker where you had to put two and two together. The cinematography was spot on and felt like you were watching any big budget spy or action movie and on par with what you expect from Marvel Studios. The tone fit the film for the most part but kind of "see-saw"-ed from time to time as they mixed serious themes with comedic dialogue throughout. But that's to be expected from a PG-13 action/spy movie from Marvel and it was a little reminiscent of the film Captain America in that regard. The music was good and there were a couple of songs that stuck out in that regard American Pie by Don Mclean and a cover of Smells Like Teen Spirit by Think Up Anger; also Cheap Thrills by Sia. The musical score was also good and the Black Widow theme was pretty epic but also with hints of melancholy to it that seemed to underline both her tragic background as well as the tragedy of the events to come in her future. Altogether the movie was really good and I give it a 7/10. If you are big time into the MCU and Marvel franchise movies then this is a must see film but if not then it might come off as just a barely above average action/spy film so that's why it doesn't get my "Must See Seal of Approval"
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Black Ops.
There was a joke on the internet the other day that made me laugh and laugh. Virtually the only white people in “Black Panther” are the Hobbit/LOTR stars Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis…. they are the Tolkein white guys! It’s actually getting to feel quite isolating as an ‘average white guy’ at the movies! After a plethora of #SheDo films about empowered women, now comes the first black-centred Marvel film… stuffed full of powerful women too!
The setting is the hidden African kingdom of Wakanda, where due to an abundance of a an all-powerful mineral called McGuffinite… so, sorry, Vibranium… the leaders have made their city a technological marvel and developed all sorts of ad tech to help the people keep their goats well and weave their baskets better (there are a few odd scenes in this film!). T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) succeeds his father T’Chaka (John Kani) to become the king and adopt the role of The Black Panther, being bestowed superhero powers by drinking a glass of Ribena.
But it emerges that T’Chaka has a dark secret in the form of Eric Killmonger (Michael B Jordan, “Creed“) who is determined to muscle in on the king-stuff. ‘It never rains but it pours’, and the whole of Wakanda’s secrets are in danger of being exposed by the antics of the vicious South African mercenary Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis, “War For The Planet Of The Apes“), trying to get his hands on vibranium to sell on to CIA operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies“, “The World’s End“).
After “Thor: Ragnarok“, this is back to the more seriously-played end of the superhero spectrum: there are a few jokes but it’s not overtly played for comedy. Holding the film together are some sterling performances from the ensemble cast with Michael B Jordan very good as the villain of the piece. Adding to the significant black girl power in the film are Angela Bassett (“London Has Fallen“) as the queen mother; Danai Gurira (“Wonder Woman“) as the leader of the Dora Milaje: the all-female king’s guard; and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the spy and love interest Nakia. But the star performance for me, and one I found absolutely spot-on as a role model for young people, was Letitia Wright (“The Commuter“) as Shuri, the king’s chief scientist. She is absolutely radiant, adding beauty, rude gestures and energy to every scene she is in.
Man of the moment Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out“) also adds to his movie-cred as a conflicted courtier.
On the white side of the shop Andy Serkis has enormous fun as Klaue and I really wanted to see more of his character than I did. Martin Freeman feels rather lightweight and under-used, and I couldn’t quite get past his dodgy American accent.
In terms of storyline, the film is a hotch-potch of plots from multiple other films, with “The Lion King” featuring strongly (but almost in reverse!). But that’s no crime, when the Shakespearean-style narrative is good, and interpolating the strongly emotional story into the Marvel universe works well.
Where I felt a little uncomfortable is the element of racism – that is, racism *against* white people – reflected in the story. If there was a movie plot centred (basically) on the topic of whites killing blacks and taking control of every black-controlled country in the world (yes, I know, I’m British and we have historically been there!) then there would be justified uproar, and the film would be shunned.
In the technical department, I had real problems with some of the effects employed. Starting with a dodgy ‘aircraft’ shadow, things nose-dive with an astonishingly poor waterfall scene with Forest Whitaker (“Rogue One“, “Arrival“) as Zuri, green-screened against some Disneyworld cascades and hundreds of cut and pasted tribesmen randomly inserted onto the cliffs. Almost matching that is a studio-set scene in a jungle clearing, where if feels they could hardly have bothered to take the plants out of their pots. Think “Daktari” quality (kids, ask your parents/grandparents).
But overall, the film, directed by Ryan Coogler (“Creed“), is a high-energy and uniquely different take on Marvel that absolutely pays off. And it is without doubt an important movie in moving the black agenda forward into properly mainstream cinema.
The setting is the hidden African kingdom of Wakanda, where due to an abundance of a an all-powerful mineral called McGuffinite… so, sorry, Vibranium… the leaders have made their city a technological marvel and developed all sorts of ad tech to help the people keep their goats well and weave their baskets better (there are a few odd scenes in this film!). T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) succeeds his father T’Chaka (John Kani) to become the king and adopt the role of The Black Panther, being bestowed superhero powers by drinking a glass of Ribena.
But it emerges that T’Chaka has a dark secret in the form of Eric Killmonger (Michael B Jordan, “Creed“) who is determined to muscle in on the king-stuff. ‘It never rains but it pours’, and the whole of Wakanda’s secrets are in danger of being exposed by the antics of the vicious South African mercenary Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis, “War For The Planet Of The Apes“), trying to get his hands on vibranium to sell on to CIA operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies“, “The World’s End“).
After “Thor: Ragnarok“, this is back to the more seriously-played end of the superhero spectrum: there are a few jokes but it’s not overtly played for comedy. Holding the film together are some sterling performances from the ensemble cast with Michael B Jordan very good as the villain of the piece. Adding to the significant black girl power in the film are Angela Bassett (“London Has Fallen“) as the queen mother; Danai Gurira (“Wonder Woman“) as the leader of the Dora Milaje: the all-female king’s guard; and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the spy and love interest Nakia. But the star performance for me, and one I found absolutely spot-on as a role model for young people, was Letitia Wright (“The Commuter“) as Shuri, the king’s chief scientist. She is absolutely radiant, adding beauty, rude gestures and energy to every scene she is in.
Man of the moment Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out“) also adds to his movie-cred as a conflicted courtier.
On the white side of the shop Andy Serkis has enormous fun as Klaue and I really wanted to see more of his character than I did. Martin Freeman feels rather lightweight and under-used, and I couldn’t quite get past his dodgy American accent.
In terms of storyline, the film is a hotch-potch of plots from multiple other films, with “The Lion King” featuring strongly (but almost in reverse!). But that’s no crime, when the Shakespearean-style narrative is good, and interpolating the strongly emotional story into the Marvel universe works well.
Where I felt a little uncomfortable is the element of racism – that is, racism *against* white people – reflected in the story. If there was a movie plot centred (basically) on the topic of whites killing blacks and taking control of every black-controlled country in the world (yes, I know, I’m British and we have historically been there!) then there would be justified uproar, and the film would be shunned.
In the technical department, I had real problems with some of the effects employed. Starting with a dodgy ‘aircraft’ shadow, things nose-dive with an astonishingly poor waterfall scene with Forest Whitaker (“Rogue One“, “Arrival“) as Zuri, green-screened against some Disneyworld cascades and hundreds of cut and pasted tribesmen randomly inserted onto the cliffs. Almost matching that is a studio-set scene in a jungle clearing, where if feels they could hardly have bothered to take the plants out of their pots. Think “Daktari” quality (kids, ask your parents/grandparents).
But overall, the film, directed by Ryan Coogler (“Creed“), is a high-energy and uniquely different take on Marvel that absolutely pays off. And it is without doubt an important movie in moving the black agenda forward into properly mainstream cinema.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A war vehicle running low on fuel.
The words “Christopher Nolan” and “disappointment” are not words I would naturally associate… but for me, they apply where “Dunkirk” is concerned.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dune (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
“He’s Not The Messiah – He’s a Very Naughty Boy!”
Certain works of fiction have been labelled with the tag of “unfilmable”, and Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel “Dune” is one of those. It’s full of exposition done as internal monologues – which screams “movie voiceover”. And regular readers will know my hatred of those!
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Lens and the Looker in Books
Feb 11, 2019
The premise of this book was quite intriguing, so I had high hopes to see how this concept of "History Camps" played out using the city of Verona in the year 1347. What I did not really understand was why Hansum and Lincoln were specifically cast as lens-maker apprentices. Kaufman goes into extreme detail regarding the intricacies of making lenses for eye glasses with rudimentary tools of that time period, and quite a bit of the book is devoted to the education of the process and the modernization of the tools used. Seeing the lens-making business in practice in the "real" Verona showed that the "lenses for the eyes" contributed as more of a novelty for the wealthy and educated than a wide-spread tool used by the masses. In contrast, Shamira's role as kitchen girl made much more sense to me, as that is a generic role that would not necessarily impede the progression of plot.
Backing up, I was very interested in the present-day time period of 2347 and the few details that Kaufman spared regarding this society. Unfortunately, not much is explained about how this society came to be. A brief explanation is given for the planetary population of 300 million, along with other random details interspersed throughout the book, such as every child born is paired with an A.I., people are implanted with a device that keeps disease and infection at bay, and parents are only allowed to have one child with a lottery sometimes allowing for a second child. The purpose of the History Camps are explained through the rebellious attitudes of the three main characters and how they can easily manipulate the system for their own entertainment. As a parent, the word that continually echoed through my head regarding these children in the Hard-Time History Camp is "Spoiled!" Though they are supposed to be learning about how the rebellion of the human populations of the past caused everything from war, to disease, to poverty and famine, the way the children are coddled and protected from any sort of real pain or hardship makes me wonder how these History Camps ever accomplished anything of lasting value in any child.
Once the children are brought to the real Verona and abandoned as orphans, they finally begin to get a taste of real difficulty and hardship, but this is where the believability ends for me. The children had a single day in the History Camp Verona to get acquainted with their roles, and they show up in the real Verona as near-experts, maneuvering the details of their jobs to accommodate for comfort and ease of use that the family they work for is not familiar with, of course all with the help and direction of a very convenient genie. On top of all of this, the three children become agreeable, cooperative, and hard-working practically overnight, with little sign of the rebellious tendencies that put them in a History Camp in the first place. These transitions in character development felt forced to me.
Another aspect that really bugged me from the beginning of the book was the awkwardness of the dialog throughout the book, specifically regarding the children's speech. It felt stilted and over-simplified, and slowed down my reading because I consistently felt that children today did not speak like this. Some of the speech of the people native to the real Verona also seemed strange, but I attributed that to the speech of the time period.
Many of the characters took on unique facets that made them rather memorable to me, such as Ugilino's looks and arrogance, Signora della Cappa's madness, and Shamira's artistic inclinations. The budding romance between Hansum, or "Romero", and Guilietta copies the Shakespearean play, "Romeo and Juliet", in many ways, down to the presence of a Father Lurenzano, and I have to wonder about Kaufman's motivations for working this tale into the plot. And again, their romance also felt forced and over-the-top, missing the reality-warping conviction that is obvious in the original Shakespeare story.
I also have to wonder how these advancements that the three children are introducing to 1347 Verona are actually affecting the progression of time, since this is a much harped-upon concern regarding time travel. The only thing that is apparent to both the children and the reader is the quaint changes made to the appearance of the genie. Something else that is also mentioned early on is that this is also the same time period as the Black Plague, which has yet to make an appearance. Hopefully, the next book in the trilogy will address these things, The Bronze and the Brimstone: The Verona Trilogy, Book 2.
This book seemed geared to appeal to pre-teens and young teens in many ways, but as an adult reader, it left much to be desired for me.
Backing up, I was very interested in the present-day time period of 2347 and the few details that Kaufman spared regarding this society. Unfortunately, not much is explained about how this society came to be. A brief explanation is given for the planetary population of 300 million, along with other random details interspersed throughout the book, such as every child born is paired with an A.I., people are implanted with a device that keeps disease and infection at bay, and parents are only allowed to have one child with a lottery sometimes allowing for a second child. The purpose of the History Camps are explained through the rebellious attitudes of the three main characters and how they can easily manipulate the system for their own entertainment. As a parent, the word that continually echoed through my head regarding these children in the Hard-Time History Camp is "Spoiled!" Though they are supposed to be learning about how the rebellion of the human populations of the past caused everything from war, to disease, to poverty and famine, the way the children are coddled and protected from any sort of real pain or hardship makes me wonder how these History Camps ever accomplished anything of lasting value in any child.
Once the children are brought to the real Verona and abandoned as orphans, they finally begin to get a taste of real difficulty and hardship, but this is where the believability ends for me. The children had a single day in the History Camp Verona to get acquainted with their roles, and they show up in the real Verona as near-experts, maneuvering the details of their jobs to accommodate for comfort and ease of use that the family they work for is not familiar with, of course all with the help and direction of a very convenient genie. On top of all of this, the three children become agreeable, cooperative, and hard-working practically overnight, with little sign of the rebellious tendencies that put them in a History Camp in the first place. These transitions in character development felt forced to me.
Another aspect that really bugged me from the beginning of the book was the awkwardness of the dialog throughout the book, specifically regarding the children's speech. It felt stilted and over-simplified, and slowed down my reading because I consistently felt that children today did not speak like this. Some of the speech of the people native to the real Verona also seemed strange, but I attributed that to the speech of the time period.
Many of the characters took on unique facets that made them rather memorable to me, such as Ugilino's looks and arrogance, Signora della Cappa's madness, and Shamira's artistic inclinations. The budding romance between Hansum, or "Romero", and Guilietta copies the Shakespearean play, "Romeo and Juliet", in many ways, down to the presence of a Father Lurenzano, and I have to wonder about Kaufman's motivations for working this tale into the plot. And again, their romance also felt forced and over-the-top, missing the reality-warping conviction that is obvious in the original Shakespeare story.
I also have to wonder how these advancements that the three children are introducing to 1347 Verona are actually affecting the progression of time, since this is a much harped-upon concern regarding time travel. The only thing that is apparent to both the children and the reader is the quaint changes made to the appearance of the genie. Something else that is also mentioned early on is that this is also the same time period as the Black Plague, which has yet to make an appearance. Hopefully, the next book in the trilogy will address these things, The Bronze and the Brimstone: The Verona Trilogy, Book 2.
This book seemed geared to appeal to pre-teens and young teens in many ways, but as an adult reader, it left much to be desired for me.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Underrated
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is the third and final installment of the iconoclastic Transformers franchise. By the law of diminishing returns, this should have fallen well below the par from the excellent first outing; well, has it? The answer is a definite no. First off, it's not as good as good as Transformers, lacking much of the comedy and puerile action, but it would be on par with the Revenge Of The Fallen, which is not up to much in many critic's opinions, which was overly smashy, confused and missed some of the pacing of the first.
Dark Of the Moon carries on the tradition of complex back stories, tying in to U.S. Space Race history, this time, right back to 1962 and the inception of the Apollo programme. Here, they postulate that NASA's moon race was purely conceived to get to the Moon first to recover a massive Cybertron based space craft, which had crashed in the Moon after the final battle on the doomed Transformer planet.
At the crash site, Sentinel Prime is discovered and years later, Optimus Prime recovers him, as he was the true leader of the Autobots in their war with the Decepticons. Also, there are a collection of what are referred to as Pillars, very 3D friendly, yet still plausibly so, floating metallic rod styled devices which would play a pivotal role later. Meanwhile, Sam, Shia LaBeouf, has moved on from his Megan Fox girlfriend and has now, somewhat inexplicably, moved in with Victoria Secrets model, though in the film, she's supposed to be some form a P.A., played by the inept Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, which is simply ridiculous. This point is also brought up in the script as his own mother warns him that he would not get so lucky a third time!
The world is has now been invaded by Decepticons and Sam, along with his collection of mis-matched allies and seven remaining Autobots are all that stands between them and total destruction. Sounds like a good setup but with a typical running time 157 minutes, the plot was simply too thin to sustain itself, leading to patchy pacing and moments that begin to plod. I didn't find this to be all that bad but others felt that the word boring would more than a little apt.
You see for me, the pay off of robots beating the hell out of each other and taking the world down with them is worth the wait and the flaws in the narrative, but for others, this will not be the case. Leonard Nimoy's voice portrayal of Sentinel Prime was fine, but the constant need to remind us that it was Mr. Spock wasn't. This culminated in a completely unnecessary piece of dialogue where Sentinel reprises Spock's line from Star Trek II, "...The needs of the many, out way the needs of the few". This was a quote to far in my opinion, certainly when justifying some questionable and immoral acts...
Then there was the 3D, and what 3D it was! This finally proved that a blockbuster can be produced in 3D without sacrificing the cinematography for cynical dimensional gestures. The film looked as I would expect any 2D blockbustering actioner to look, with sweeping aerial action and objects flying towards the audience but the 3D effect only amplified this, and didn't make it. This was well conceived and I take my hats of to them. This is what 3D should look like and it was visually arresting.
Overall, the film provided all the thrills and spills that you would expect from Transformers, with acceptable acting for a film of this genre, with the gross exception of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who should stick to modeling and as acting or even speaking would seem to be light years beyond her. John Malkovich and Frances McDormand, deliver great cameos and bring some of the only really decent acting to the film, with the further exceptions of the returning John Turturro and the addition of Alan Tudyk, who both deliver most of the belly laughs in this outing.
It was fun but not as much fun as the previous films. DOTM was clearly trying to shift the tone and in doing so it succeeded at moving the film into a slightly darker, more action film place. This felt more like a straight forward 12 rated actioner such as Bay's other efforts, The Rock and Armageddon and a little less of the lighter more child friendly overtones of the previous two. Still, I enjoyed this and feel very strongly that the naysayers who would rate this film so lowly that you'd have to look for it in the gutter, have allowed themselves to take this way too seriously.
Is this the end of for Transformers? I hope so, but the door is still open and with the vast profits that it's already made, Transformers 4 could be just around the next corner. If that's the case, it is not what i would prefer, feeling that they've gone as far as they came but I would certainly run out to watch it!
Dark Of the Moon carries on the tradition of complex back stories, tying in to U.S. Space Race history, this time, right back to 1962 and the inception of the Apollo programme. Here, they postulate that NASA's moon race was purely conceived to get to the Moon first to recover a massive Cybertron based space craft, which had crashed in the Moon after the final battle on the doomed Transformer planet.
At the crash site, Sentinel Prime is discovered and years later, Optimus Prime recovers him, as he was the true leader of the Autobots in their war with the Decepticons. Also, there are a collection of what are referred to as Pillars, very 3D friendly, yet still plausibly so, floating metallic rod styled devices which would play a pivotal role later. Meanwhile, Sam, Shia LaBeouf, has moved on from his Megan Fox girlfriend and has now, somewhat inexplicably, moved in with Victoria Secrets model, though in the film, she's supposed to be some form a P.A., played by the inept Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, which is simply ridiculous. This point is also brought up in the script as his own mother warns him that he would not get so lucky a third time!
The world is has now been invaded by Decepticons and Sam, along with his collection of mis-matched allies and seven remaining Autobots are all that stands between them and total destruction. Sounds like a good setup but with a typical running time 157 minutes, the plot was simply too thin to sustain itself, leading to patchy pacing and moments that begin to plod. I didn't find this to be all that bad but others felt that the word boring would more than a little apt.
You see for me, the pay off of robots beating the hell out of each other and taking the world down with them is worth the wait and the flaws in the narrative, but for others, this will not be the case. Leonard Nimoy's voice portrayal of Sentinel Prime was fine, but the constant need to remind us that it was Mr. Spock wasn't. This culminated in a completely unnecessary piece of dialogue where Sentinel reprises Spock's line from Star Trek II, "...The needs of the many, out way the needs of the few". This was a quote to far in my opinion, certainly when justifying some questionable and immoral acts...
Then there was the 3D, and what 3D it was! This finally proved that a blockbuster can be produced in 3D without sacrificing the cinematography for cynical dimensional gestures. The film looked as I would expect any 2D blockbustering actioner to look, with sweeping aerial action and objects flying towards the audience but the 3D effect only amplified this, and didn't make it. This was well conceived and I take my hats of to them. This is what 3D should look like and it was visually arresting.
Overall, the film provided all the thrills and spills that you would expect from Transformers, with acceptable acting for a film of this genre, with the gross exception of Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who should stick to modeling and as acting or even speaking would seem to be light years beyond her. John Malkovich and Frances McDormand, deliver great cameos and bring some of the only really decent acting to the film, with the further exceptions of the returning John Turturro and the addition of Alan Tudyk, who both deliver most of the belly laughs in this outing.
It was fun but not as much fun as the previous films. DOTM was clearly trying to shift the tone and in doing so it succeeded at moving the film into a slightly darker, more action film place. This felt more like a straight forward 12 rated actioner such as Bay's other efforts, The Rock and Armageddon and a little less of the lighter more child friendly overtones of the previous two. Still, I enjoyed this and feel very strongly that the naysayers who would rate this film so lowly that you'd have to look for it in the gutter, have allowed themselves to take this way too seriously.
Is this the end of for Transformers? I hope so, but the door is still open and with the vast profits that it's already made, Transformers 4 could be just around the next corner. If that's the case, it is not what i would prefer, feeling that they've gone as far as they came but I would certainly run out to watch it!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dumbo (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Tim Burton and the flying elephant
If you had told me 15 years ago that Tim Burton would be directing a live-action adaptation of Disney’s classic, Dumbo I would’ve been overwhelmed with excitement. The director, famed for his unique sense of gothic style and visual flair has directed some of the best films ever made.
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow and Beetlejuice are just a few classics on a resume populated by cracking movies. However, over the last decade Burton has become a director that has focused on style over substance. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory was a pale imitation of the original and his live-action remake of Alice in Wonderland was successful but hollow.
Therefore, we arrive in 2019 with a slight sense of apprehension. Dumbo is a classic Disney cartoon and there’s a risk of a little too much Burton for the little elephant’s good. But is that fear unfounded?
Struggling circus owner Max Medici (Danny DeVito) enlists a former star (Colin Farrell) and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction – bringing in huge audiences and revitalising the run-down circus. The elephant’s magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere (Michael Keaton), an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture.
Updating Dumbo for the modern age was always going to be a difficult task. At just over an hour long and with some shall we say, less than PC story elements, the original needed some serious padding and editing to turn it into a fully-fledged feature film and while there are moments of brilliance here, Dumbo suffers from a disjointed and overthought script, flat characters and you guessed it, too much Burton.
We’ll start with the good. Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work. The cinematography is absolutely astounding with stunning sunsets and vivid colours populating the screen at all points during the 112-minute running time. The opening in particular, a hark back to the original in which a train crosses a map of the US is inspired and nicely filmed.
For the most part though, Dumbo pushes the limits of visual effects to the point where everything feels far too artificial. The baby elephant himself is on the whole very good, and as adorable as you would expect, but there are moments dotted throughout the film that suffer from the limitations of CGI. A scene in which Dumbo gets a bath is terrifying. In fact, there are multiple sequences towards the finale in which the CGI is so poor that it looks like something out of a second generation video game.
Dumbo is a beautiful film, filled to the brim with striking imagery that harks back to some of Burton’s previous work
Elsewhere, the cast is by far the film’s weakest element. Colin Farrell is a disappointingly forgettable and miscast lead. Arriving home after losing his arm in the war, Farrell’s Holt is completely flat, not helped by some poor acting from the usually dependable star. Michael Keaton doesn’t get to do much apart from smile menacingly and Danny DeVito hams it up to 11 as struggling circus-owner Max Medici; oh dear.
There are some positives cast-wise however: Nico Parker as Milly Farrier, Holt’s curious science-minded daughter, is very good, even if the script beats you around the head with the fact that she’s an intelligent girl who wants more out of her life, but this is brought right back down to earth by Eva Green’s horrific French accent.
Then there’s Burton himself. While the shots of Dumbo circling the circus tent in the air are breath-taking, and scenes of the pachyderm covered in clown make-up as he’s abused for profit are as heart-breaking as they are in the original, they’re ruined by unusual story-telling choices. As the film steamrolls to its climax set in a theme-park that’s a third Scooby Doo, a third Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory and a third Jurassic Park, Burton piles on his usual tropes far too thick – it just doesn’t fit with the tale of the magical flying elephant.
Some of the more touching elements are handled well however. Dumbo’s separation from his mother is devastating and he feels like a real personality throughout the entire film, but for a film titled Dumbo, it needs more Dumbo!
Overall, Dumbo is a perfectly enjoyable adventure ride that’s spoilt by Burton’s once trademark filming style and a roster of flat and forgettable characters. With the boundaries of CGI being pushed to the max here, some of the film feels a little unfinished and as such, this live-action adaptation is a touch disappointing. One can only wonder what this film would have been like with a different director at the helm.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/30/dumbo-review-tim-burton-and-the-flying-elephant/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Marvel just about manages to pull it off
With a touching tribute to the amazing Stan Lee, it’s clear from the outset that Captain Marvel isn’t going to be your ordinary MCU instalment, or so Marvel Studios would have us believe. The 21stfilm, yes, I can’t quite believe it either, in the long-standing Marvel Cinematic Universe, Captain Marvel is the first superhero film from the studio to focus primarily on a single female lead.
Astounding really that a franchise started by all intents and purposes way back in 2008 with Iron Man and has grossed billion after billion at the box-office hasn’t felt the need to offer a big tentpole movie to a female hero. But history aside, Captain Marvel has finally landed. Are we looking at one of Marvel’s greats?
Captain Marvel (Brie Larson) is an extra-terrestrial Kree warrior who finds herself caught in the middle of an intergalactic battle between her people and the Skrulls. Living on Earth in 1995, she keeps having recurring memories of another life as U.S. Air Force pilot Carol Danvers. With help from Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson), Captain Marvel tries to uncover the secrets of her past while harnessing her special superpowers to end the war with the evil Skrulls.
Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck in their first big-budget blockbuster, Captain Marvel shows, if you’ll pardon the pun, flecks of brilliance while battling a fairly average origins story for what could be described as Marvel’s most powerful hero.
Where it does shine throughout is in its casting. We’ll get to the titular hero shortly but Samuel L Jackson’s performance across the film is exceptional. Beautifully de-aged without the off-putting uncanny valley treatment we occasionally get with these types of visual effects, he’s a highlight of the film and the chemistry he shares with Larson is believable and enjoyable to watch.
Clearly not afraid of being typecast is Ben Mendelsohn who has played some tremendous villains over the course of his career. From Rogue One to Ready Player One, the Australian actor clearly feels right at home as Skrull leader, Talos.
Though hidden behind layers of prosthetics for the majority of the movie, he comes across much better than poor Oscar Issac did in X-Men: Apocalypse. Unfortunately, the film does lack a menacing villain throughout however, but this isn’t down to Mendelsohn’s performance which is spot on.
While the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality
Brie Larson is good, but her story arc is hampered by a bout of amnesia, used to progress the story. It’s a poor scripting decision by the film’s five writers but a necessary one to deal with all the Marvel lore and baggage that comes with creating the 21staddition to a very interlinked series. It’s a shame that this is the case as Larson shares wonderful chemistry with all her co-stars and is let down by her at-times clunky dialogue.
When it comes to the visual effects, we’ve got a story of two halves. This is a $152million movie and with that comes a set of expectations that just aren’t fulfilled consistently enough. Some of the CGI used is incredibly poor and the Kree’s home planet of Hala feels hollow – worlds away from Sakaar and Nova Prime from other Marvel outings. It could almost be compared to that of the Star Wars sequels, though perhaps that’s being a little too harsh.
The cinematography too is bland. Ben Davis is one of the finest cinematographers working in the industry and has put his name to films like Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, Kick-Ass and Avengers: Age of Ultron to name but a few. But here, he seems to lack that flair he’s so often known for and while the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality.
Thankfully Captain Marvel retains that classic Marvel sense of humour that we all know and love and there are some genuinely touching moments as the titular hero begins to remember who she is. It also feels very much of the era it’s set in and that’s great. 90s music and a real 90s feel emanate from the screen and it’s here that the film scores highly.
Overall, Captain Marvel is a competent but not outstanding origins story that lacks consistent visual effects, a truly compelling script and engaging cinematography. While it is difficult to warm to Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers at times, it is testament to her acting ability that she remains likeable throughout – it’s just a shame that Marvel hasn’t quite managed to pull it off completely this time around.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/08/captain-marvel-review-marvel-just-about-manages-to-pull-it-off/
Astounding really that a franchise started by all intents and purposes way back in 2008 with Iron Man and has grossed billion after billion at the box-office hasn’t felt the need to offer a big tentpole movie to a female hero. But history aside, Captain Marvel has finally landed. Are we looking at one of Marvel’s greats?
Captain Marvel (Brie Larson) is an extra-terrestrial Kree warrior who finds herself caught in the middle of an intergalactic battle between her people and the Skrulls. Living on Earth in 1995, she keeps having recurring memories of another life as U.S. Air Force pilot Carol Danvers. With help from Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson), Captain Marvel tries to uncover the secrets of her past while harnessing her special superpowers to end the war with the evil Skrulls.
Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck in their first big-budget blockbuster, Captain Marvel shows, if you’ll pardon the pun, flecks of brilliance while battling a fairly average origins story for what could be described as Marvel’s most powerful hero.
Where it does shine throughout is in its casting. We’ll get to the titular hero shortly but Samuel L Jackson’s performance across the film is exceptional. Beautifully de-aged without the off-putting uncanny valley treatment we occasionally get with these types of visual effects, he’s a highlight of the film and the chemistry he shares with Larson is believable and enjoyable to watch.
Clearly not afraid of being typecast is Ben Mendelsohn who has played some tremendous villains over the course of his career. From Rogue One to Ready Player One, the Australian actor clearly feels right at home as Skrull leader, Talos.
Though hidden behind layers of prosthetics for the majority of the movie, he comes across much better than poor Oscar Issac did in X-Men: Apocalypse. Unfortunately, the film does lack a menacing villain throughout however, but this isn’t down to Mendelsohn’s performance which is spot on.
While the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality
Brie Larson is good, but her story arc is hampered by a bout of amnesia, used to progress the story. It’s a poor scripting decision by the film’s five writers but a necessary one to deal with all the Marvel lore and baggage that comes with creating the 21staddition to a very interlinked series. It’s a shame that this is the case as Larson shares wonderful chemistry with all her co-stars and is let down by her at-times clunky dialogue.
When it comes to the visual effects, we’ve got a story of two halves. This is a $152million movie and with that comes a set of expectations that just aren’t fulfilled consistently enough. Some of the CGI used is incredibly poor and the Kree’s home planet of Hala feels hollow – worlds away from Sakaar and Nova Prime from other Marvel outings. It could almost be compared to that of the Star Wars sequels, though perhaps that’s being a little too harsh.
The cinematography too is bland. Ben Davis is one of the finest cinematographers working in the industry and has put his name to films like Doctor Strange, Guardians of the Galaxy, Kick-Ass and Avengers: Age of Ultron to name but a few. But here, he seems to lack that flair he’s so often known for and while the action is filmed with aplomb and there are some cracking set pieces, they feel a little ordinary and lacking in originality.
Thankfully Captain Marvel retains that classic Marvel sense of humour that we all know and love and there are some genuinely touching moments as the titular hero begins to remember who she is. It also feels very much of the era it’s set in and that’s great. 90s music and a real 90s feel emanate from the screen and it’s here that the film scores highly.
Overall, Captain Marvel is a competent but not outstanding origins story that lacks consistent visual effects, a truly compelling script and engaging cinematography. While it is difficult to warm to Brie Larson’s Carol Danvers at times, it is testament to her acting ability that she remains likeable throughout – it’s just a shame that Marvel hasn’t quite managed to pull it off completely this time around.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/03/08/captain-marvel-review-marvel-just-about-manages-to-pull-it-off/