Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse was directed by Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey and Rodney Rothman. It features a voice cast that includes Jake Johnson, Nicolas Cage, Brian Tyree Henry, Shameik Moore plus many more.
The plot revolves around a high schooler who after getting bitten by a radioactive spider, gets powers from a portal accident and then finds many more Spider-people from other dimensions who have found themselves in the modern world. Then they must team up to stop a villain and get everyone back home. This plot sounded interesting to me because it sounded more ambitious than all the other entries that had come before it and I wanted to see if it could live up to those ambitions.
Voice acting - most of the performances are average, the one who stood out to me the most would have to be Jake Johnson as Peter B Parker. His performance was quite an interesting idea of what an older, more experienced version of a character many know and love could very well look like, and he pulled it off very well.
Screenplay - the film was written by Rodney Rothman and Phil Lord who did an okay job but there are some parts that feel very familiar for this kind of film. The strength of it is giving us the time and space needed to know who everyone is from the heroes to the villains and the side characters.
Animation - the animation was another thing that got my attention about this film. I thought it was just another way for this film to separate itself from its predecessors, given how much it looks like an actual comic and it uses that where it can. But I didn't feel as if the animation really was that special in the end.
Music - the film's score was composed by Daniel Pemberton. I thought it was one of the least memorable scores I've heard in a very long time. Most of the time it sounded like just another superhero movie soundtrack that audiences had heard before, just composed better. And when it's not being that, the soundtrack is made up of low quality hip-hop, possibly to help go along with the film's urban setting.
The big flaw with the film would be its running time. Yes, this is a Spider-Man film and has a lot that it wants to accomplish. It is also very much a kids' film, and when was the last time you saw an animated kids' film that was four minutes off from being two hours? Surely if the editors worked at it a bit more they could have found things to take out, but still keep the important pieces of the story intact.
In conclusion - Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse has an interesting plot, decent voice acting, and a middling screenplay, then its faults show. If this is to be the future of this franchise, I would seriously like to hope things will pick up.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse...
C-
Thank you for reading.
Wednesday 19 December 2018
Thursday 10 May 2018
Red Dragon Review
In 2002 Anthony Hopkins portrayed Hannibal Lecter for the third and final time in Red Dragon, based on the book of the same name by Thomas Harris and directed by Brett Ratner.
I found this movie interesting for two reasons. Firstly that it came out only a year after the previous, rather poorly received, adaptation of another Hannibal story - which could have had an impact on people's reactions when this film appeared so soon afterwards. Secondly, this book had already been adapted into a film back in 1986 but titled Manhunter. It didn't do very well, at the time and the only attention it has received since is mainly through a certain cult status.
Red Dragon stars Anthony Hopkins, Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson, Mary Louise Parker and Philip Seymour Hoffmann.
The plot concerns a talented FBI agent (Norton) who happens to be the same one who caught Lecter some time ago. He is asked to return to his old job to help to find a new serial killer who has the authorities baffled and determined to find him before he can kill again. Naturally the agent, in desperation, turns to Lecter for his help. I found this plot very enjoyable to watch, mainly because I have read the book and I liked it. Also, I don't feel that the 1986 adaptation did the book justice so I wanted to see if it could be improved on this time.
The performances are all good but the real standout for me is Ralph Fiennes as Francis Dolarhyde. He has to play Dolarhyde the socially awkward man, and also Dolarhyde the psychopath, and does so in very different ways making it easy to tell which side of the character he is playing at any one time. I would also give an honourable mention to Anthony Hopkins as Lecter, but he had the advantage of the previous two films' experience in building the character up. However, the 15 rating for this movie means his performance has to be toned down somewhat, which does not work in his favour, as opposed to the opportunities he had in The Silence of the Lambs.
The screenplay was written by Ted Tally and is mostly accurate to the book, from the central characters, to key moments, to little pieces of dialogue. All this shows that they were trying to stay as true to the source material as possible and give it a good translation from page to screen.
Dante Spinotti returns from Manhunter to do the cinematography. His best work here is without a doubt the scenes set in dimly-lit rooms, because when combined with the lighting it really helps the film's dark and unsettling tone to be effective.
The score was composed by Danny Elfman. Most of it is pretty average to me, but the best moment is the opening title sequence. It is has to prepare you for what is to come and accomplishes this with a opening score that is fast, loud, and most importantly distinctive compared to its predecessors in the franchise.
My main problem with this movie is the moment in the pre-title sequence when Lecter is shot. Anyone familiar with the chronological order of the franchise will know that The Silence of the Lambs, in which Lecter has a pivotal role, comes next. This means that he cannot come to much harm in this movie, and that renders this opening scene ineffective.
In conclusion, Red Dragon has good performances, a well-adapted screenplay, very effective cinematography and a competent music score to accompany it all.
It is my firm opinion that this film is a definite improvement on Manhunter and I'm sure if you watched the movie you would be pleasantly surprised.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account I'm going to give Red Dragon...
A-
Thank you for reading and
You owe me Awe!
I found this movie interesting for two reasons. Firstly that it came out only a year after the previous, rather poorly received, adaptation of another Hannibal story - which could have had an impact on people's reactions when this film appeared so soon afterwards. Secondly, this book had already been adapted into a film back in 1986 but titled Manhunter. It didn't do very well, at the time and the only attention it has received since is mainly through a certain cult status.
Red Dragon stars Anthony Hopkins, Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson, Mary Louise Parker and Philip Seymour Hoffmann.
The plot concerns a talented FBI agent (Norton) who happens to be the same one who caught Lecter some time ago. He is asked to return to his old job to help to find a new serial killer who has the authorities baffled and determined to find him before he can kill again. Naturally the agent, in desperation, turns to Lecter for his help. I found this plot very enjoyable to watch, mainly because I have read the book and I liked it. Also, I don't feel that the 1986 adaptation did the book justice so I wanted to see if it could be improved on this time.
The performances are all good but the real standout for me is Ralph Fiennes as Francis Dolarhyde. He has to play Dolarhyde the socially awkward man, and also Dolarhyde the psychopath, and does so in very different ways making it easy to tell which side of the character he is playing at any one time. I would also give an honourable mention to Anthony Hopkins as Lecter, but he had the advantage of the previous two films' experience in building the character up. However, the 15 rating for this movie means his performance has to be toned down somewhat, which does not work in his favour, as opposed to the opportunities he had in The Silence of the Lambs.
The screenplay was written by Ted Tally and is mostly accurate to the book, from the central characters, to key moments, to little pieces of dialogue. All this shows that they were trying to stay as true to the source material as possible and give it a good translation from page to screen.
Dante Spinotti returns from Manhunter to do the cinematography. His best work here is without a doubt the scenes set in dimly-lit rooms, because when combined with the lighting it really helps the film's dark and unsettling tone to be effective.
The score was composed by Danny Elfman. Most of it is pretty average to me, but the best moment is the opening title sequence. It is has to prepare you for what is to come and accomplishes this with a opening score that is fast, loud, and most importantly distinctive compared to its predecessors in the franchise.
My main problem with this movie is the moment in the pre-title sequence when Lecter is shot. Anyone familiar with the chronological order of the franchise will know that The Silence of the Lambs, in which Lecter has a pivotal role, comes next. This means that he cannot come to much harm in this movie, and that renders this opening scene ineffective.
In conclusion, Red Dragon has good performances, a well-adapted screenplay, very effective cinematography and a competent music score to accompany it all.
It is my firm opinion that this film is a definite improvement on Manhunter and I'm sure if you watched the movie you would be pleasantly surprised.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account I'm going to give Red Dragon...
A-
Thank you for reading and
You owe me Awe!
Tuesday 10 April 2018
Pulp Fiction Review
In 1994 following his success with Reservoir Dogs, Quentin Tarantino gave audiences what would become his most popular film, Pulp Fiction.
The film stars an impressive ensemble cast that includes. Samuel L Jackson, John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Tim Roth, Bruce Willis and many more.
The plot revolves around a group of LA-based lowlifes and the rather unfortunate situations that they all find themselves in, and like Reservoir Dogs the plot is executed using a very enjoyable non-linear narrative to tell its story.
All of the cast give strong performances, but for me the standout is Samuel L Jackson, it's obvious that he is clearly enjoying his time on screen and very quickly makes an impression. Just about anything he says from the film is quotable... I'm talking about you, Ezekiel 25:17...
The screenplay is full of everything we have come to expect from Tarantino, like film (and film industry) references, racial slurs, profanity and blood. But what is driving things along and what is the best part of the film is the dialogue. Most of it is stuff you would be shocked if you heard somebody say in everyday life, but here we cannot help but be entertained and I cannot imagine the screenplay without it.
The film was shot by Andrzej Sekula and I feel that, his best work with the cinematography. Was once again showing how unafraid the director was of showing his style of violence.
I would like to mention Sally Menke's editing, particularly for a scene that involves Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames having to escape a rather desperate situation. The accompanying music begins at the start of the situation and ends at the exact moment when it has been resolved and to me that is an excellent piece of editing.
There was no original score composed for the film, instead we have a wide range of rock and roll, surf music,and pop and soul tracks. But in my opinion none of them has anything on the iconic and instantly recognisable opening theme. I do believe this was the music's standout moment since it has the very important job of preparing you for what you about to see. Also as I mentioned before, in the scene with Willis and Rhames the music will be what you remember and it will be stuck in your head for a long while after the movie has ended.
Here is my only flaw with the movie, to me the final few minutes Thurman and Travolta share on screen together did not need to be in the movie at all; it just felt like an excuse to have an extra few minutes of out of control craziness, and it didn't even add anything to the film's plot.
However in conclusion I think that Pulp Fiction has good performances and great dialogue and has proved itself worthy of all the acclaim it has received over the years. And I will strike down with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to discredit and poison the work of the great Quentin Tarantino, and you will know my name is The Critic when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account I'm going to give Pulp Fiction
A+
The film stars an impressive ensemble cast that includes. Samuel L Jackson, John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Tim Roth, Bruce Willis and many more.
The plot revolves around a group of LA-based lowlifes and the rather unfortunate situations that they all find themselves in, and like Reservoir Dogs the plot is executed using a very enjoyable non-linear narrative to tell its story.
All of the cast give strong performances, but for me the standout is Samuel L Jackson, it's obvious that he is clearly enjoying his time on screen and very quickly makes an impression. Just about anything he says from the film is quotable... I'm talking about you, Ezekiel 25:17...
The screenplay is full of everything we have come to expect from Tarantino, like film (and film industry) references, racial slurs, profanity and blood. But what is driving things along and what is the best part of the film is the dialogue. Most of it is stuff you would be shocked if you heard somebody say in everyday life, but here we cannot help but be entertained and I cannot imagine the screenplay without it.
The film was shot by Andrzej Sekula and I feel that, his best work with the cinematography. Was once again showing how unafraid the director was of showing his style of violence.
I would like to mention Sally Menke's editing, particularly for a scene that involves Bruce Willis and Ving Rhames having to escape a rather desperate situation. The accompanying music begins at the start of the situation and ends at the exact moment when it has been resolved and to me that is an excellent piece of editing.
There was no original score composed for the film, instead we have a wide range of rock and roll, surf music,and pop and soul tracks. But in my opinion none of them has anything on the iconic and instantly recognisable opening theme. I do believe this was the music's standout moment since it has the very important job of preparing you for what you about to see. Also as I mentioned before, in the scene with Willis and Rhames the music will be what you remember and it will be stuck in your head for a long while after the movie has ended.
Here is my only flaw with the movie, to me the final few minutes Thurman and Travolta share on screen together did not need to be in the movie at all; it just felt like an excuse to have an extra few minutes of out of control craziness, and it didn't even add anything to the film's plot.
However in conclusion I think that Pulp Fiction has good performances and great dialogue and has proved itself worthy of all the acclaim it has received over the years. And I will strike down with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to discredit and poison the work of the great Quentin Tarantino, and you will know my name is The Critic when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account I'm going to give Pulp Fiction
A+
Saturday 10 March 2018
Deadpool Review
In July 2014, footage of a proposed Deadpool movie was leaked onto the internet. It got a very impressive response from the public which persuaded the studio to give Deadpool the green light. And in 2016 audiences finally got to see the film. I think I've introduced this review enough, let's just talk about this movie.
It was directed by Tim Miller and stars Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarin, Ed Skrein, T J Miller, Gina Carano, Brianna Hildebrand and Stefan Kapicic.
The plot revolves around a man (Reynolds) who after suffering a horrific accident, is transformed into the wisecracking and ultraviolent mercenary known as Deadpool. Who sets out to find the man (Skrein) who is responsible for what happened to him. I found the plot moderately interesting with the direction that it takes being the thing that keeps your attention.
In the matter of the film's performances, the best ones in my mind are first of all Reynolds as Deadpool who brought a great deal energy and likeability to his character. And as the villain, what impressed me most about Ed Skrein's performance was that while the hero is always acting in a very over the top manner, so he shows how different the villain is by being very calm and soft spoken, that is what made him the perfect person to play the villain of this very different kind of superhero movie.
The screenplay was written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. From what I already knew about this movie before watching it, one of the biggest things the source material was known for was its use of 'fourth wall breaks' and characters talking about popular culture. And I found the best part of the screenplay to be the dialogue that involved popular culture for two reasons - because most times it worked and it showed that the source material was being honoured.
The cinematography is by Ken Seng and most it I would say is fairly average. If any of it has a standout moment for me I would have to pick the shots we see during the opening credits, as they tell you all you need to know about the kind of film you are about to watch.
The score was composed by Tom Holkenborg. There is nothing wrong with it, it has the right music at the right moment as you would expect. There are also quite a few popular songs played throughout the film and one of them (Angel of the Morning) comes right at the start with the credits to help to set up the film and if there is a standout moment in the film's music, that would undoubtedly be it.
While most of my time with the film was well spent I did come across some minor disappointments. For a film in which popular culture plays such a big part, there's one reference which just seemed a bit unnecessary and out of place and maybe didn't even need to be in the finished product. If you want to find it, I will just say two words, the watch.
When a film is working so hard to set itself apart from all others in its genre, and for the most part succeeds, I could not help but feel that the ending,while filled with little comedic moments, was clichéd. When you have a character and a world like this, I would have hoped the film's idea of uniqueness would be maintained to the very end, but when it got there it became predictable how it would all end.
In conclusion Deadpool has good performances from the leads, a good sense of humor, and very few flaws that would threaten your enjoyment of the movie.
I'm going to give Deadpool.
B+
Thank you for reading.
It was directed by Tim Miller and stars Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarin, Ed Skrein, T J Miller, Gina Carano, Brianna Hildebrand and Stefan Kapicic.
The plot revolves around a man (Reynolds) who after suffering a horrific accident, is transformed into the wisecracking and ultraviolent mercenary known as Deadpool. Who sets out to find the man (Skrein) who is responsible for what happened to him. I found the plot moderately interesting with the direction that it takes being the thing that keeps your attention.
In the matter of the film's performances, the best ones in my mind are first of all Reynolds as Deadpool who brought a great deal energy and likeability to his character. And as the villain, what impressed me most about Ed Skrein's performance was that while the hero is always acting in a very over the top manner, so he shows how different the villain is by being very calm and soft spoken, that is what made him the perfect person to play the villain of this very different kind of superhero movie.
The screenplay was written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. From what I already knew about this movie before watching it, one of the biggest things the source material was known for was its use of 'fourth wall breaks' and characters talking about popular culture. And I found the best part of the screenplay to be the dialogue that involved popular culture for two reasons - because most times it worked and it showed that the source material was being honoured.
The cinematography is by Ken Seng and most it I would say is fairly average. If any of it has a standout moment for me I would have to pick the shots we see during the opening credits, as they tell you all you need to know about the kind of film you are about to watch.
The score was composed by Tom Holkenborg. There is nothing wrong with it, it has the right music at the right moment as you would expect. There are also quite a few popular songs played throughout the film and one of them (Angel of the Morning) comes right at the start with the credits to help to set up the film and if there is a standout moment in the film's music, that would undoubtedly be it.
While most of my time with the film was well spent I did come across some minor disappointments. For a film in which popular culture plays such a big part, there's one reference which just seemed a bit unnecessary and out of place and maybe didn't even need to be in the finished product. If you want to find it, I will just say two words, the watch.
When a film is working so hard to set itself apart from all others in its genre, and for the most part succeeds, I could not help but feel that the ending,while filled with little comedic moments, was clichéd. When you have a character and a world like this, I would have hoped the film's idea of uniqueness would be maintained to the very end, but when it got there it became predictable how it would all end.
In conclusion Deadpool has good performances from the leads, a good sense of humor, and very few flaws that would threaten your enjoyment of the movie.
I'm going to give Deadpool.
B+
Thank you for reading.
Saturday 10 February 2018
Reservoir Dogs Review
In 1992, high-school drop-out and former video rental shop worker, Quentin Tarantino, made his debut feature film, Reservoir Dogs.
The plot is very clear: a group of criminals go on a job expecting it to be success, but it ends badly. The film explores the aftermath of the incident and how it happened. I found the plot of the film to be very interesting, and I was constantly entertained as it slowly unfolded.
Acting: the film's main cast consists of people like Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Steve Buscemi, Chris Penn and Lawrence Tierney. For the performances I could tell you that just about everyone here is bringing their best. If I had to choose one performance that stood out to me the most I would have to pick Michael Madsen as Mr Blonde. With his character he accomplishes what I imagine most actors would find very difficult - to do horrible things on screen and still be a likeable character - and he does that with a refreshing and enjoyable sense of dark humour. I would also like to mention the performance of Lawrence Tierney who plays Joe Cabot, I thought he played the more experienced, elder gangster very well. And his character was a rather good contrast when compared to his younger and obviously less experienced associates.
Screenplay: Tarantino himself wrote the screenplay for the film, and while it does have the kind of violence the director is known for, it is a lot more dialogue-driven, and the words spoken by these characters sound and feel like the words actual people would say. I particularly like the conversation at the start of the movie about a certain well-known 80s song, because of how realistic it is.
Cinematography: the film was shot by Andrzej Sekula. and I think he did quite well with his camerawork. What I think struck me about the shots in the film was how close-ups of people unapologetically focus on the very gritty, almost grotesque, blood that would go on to become one of the director's most notable trademarks. I thought that these shots add to the brutality of the situation these people find themselves in.
As to the music, while this film is mostly dialogue-driven and is for the most part confined to a warehouse, it has no actual composer. There is just a selection of songs from the 1960s and 1970s to fill the gap which I felt was a nice change. It was worthwhile to sacrifice an original music score due to the budget constraints of an independent film. One song in particular stood out to me and gave a scene a very dark comic edge without which I think the scene would have been very difficult to watch. I'm glad it wasn't.
While I did enjoy my viewing experience and I found very little of which I disapproved, I feel I stumbled on one weakness, which would be a couple of characters too many - Tarantino as Mr Brown and Edward Bunker as Mr Blue. Now I understand that Tarantino had a heavy workload making this film and I respect him for that, but I don't see why his character is necessary. He does have some dialogue at the start, and some more - briefly - later in the film (both during flashbacks). That is all we see of him, but he even gets billing in the opening credits. Usually when a actor gets billing in opening credits he has a bit more to do than just a few words. To me this feels like just another way of Tarantino making his presence known to his actors. In the case of Bunker who plays Mr Blue, again some dialogue then he is gone, and to me all he did in his remaining screen time was to be another body to fill the room.
In conclusion I found Reservoir dogs to be full of good performances, wonderfully scripted dialogue and any dull moments were almost non-existent. And it was truly impressive to see what someone could do with such skill and mastery of his profession. I will truly be interested to see what Mr Tarantino comes up with for us in the future.
Having taken all pros and very few cons into account, I'm going to give Reservoir Dogs an..
A+
The plot is very clear: a group of criminals go on a job expecting it to be success, but it ends badly. The film explores the aftermath of the incident and how it happened. I found the plot of the film to be very interesting, and I was constantly entertained as it slowly unfolded.
Acting: the film's main cast consists of people like Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Steve Buscemi, Chris Penn and Lawrence Tierney. For the performances I could tell you that just about everyone here is bringing their best. If I had to choose one performance that stood out to me the most I would have to pick Michael Madsen as Mr Blonde. With his character he accomplishes what I imagine most actors would find very difficult - to do horrible things on screen and still be a likeable character - and he does that with a refreshing and enjoyable sense of dark humour. I would also like to mention the performance of Lawrence Tierney who plays Joe Cabot, I thought he played the more experienced, elder gangster very well. And his character was a rather good contrast when compared to his younger and obviously less experienced associates.
Screenplay: Tarantino himself wrote the screenplay for the film, and while it does have the kind of violence the director is known for, it is a lot more dialogue-driven, and the words spoken by these characters sound and feel like the words actual people would say. I particularly like the conversation at the start of the movie about a certain well-known 80s song, because of how realistic it is.
Cinematography: the film was shot by Andrzej Sekula. and I think he did quite well with his camerawork. What I think struck me about the shots in the film was how close-ups of people unapologetically focus on the very gritty, almost grotesque, blood that would go on to become one of the director's most notable trademarks. I thought that these shots add to the brutality of the situation these people find themselves in.
As to the music, while this film is mostly dialogue-driven and is for the most part confined to a warehouse, it has no actual composer. There is just a selection of songs from the 1960s and 1970s to fill the gap which I felt was a nice change. It was worthwhile to sacrifice an original music score due to the budget constraints of an independent film. One song in particular stood out to me and gave a scene a very dark comic edge without which I think the scene would have been very difficult to watch. I'm glad it wasn't.
While I did enjoy my viewing experience and I found very little of which I disapproved, I feel I stumbled on one weakness, which would be a couple of characters too many - Tarantino as Mr Brown and Edward Bunker as Mr Blue. Now I understand that Tarantino had a heavy workload making this film and I respect him for that, but I don't see why his character is necessary. He does have some dialogue at the start, and some more - briefly - later in the film (both during flashbacks). That is all we see of him, but he even gets billing in the opening credits. Usually when a actor gets billing in opening credits he has a bit more to do than just a few words. To me this feels like just another way of Tarantino making his presence known to his actors. In the case of Bunker who plays Mr Blue, again some dialogue then he is gone, and to me all he did in his remaining screen time was to be another body to fill the room.
In conclusion I found Reservoir dogs to be full of good performances, wonderfully scripted dialogue and any dull moments were almost non-existent. And it was truly impressive to see what someone could do with such skill and mastery of his profession. I will truly be interested to see what Mr Tarantino comes up with for us in the future.
Having taken all pros and very few cons into account, I'm going to give Reservoir Dogs an..
A+
Tuesday 2 January 2018
Road To Perdition Review
Before becoming known as the director of two films of the Bond franchise, Sam Mendes once directed a film adapted from a graphic novel called Road To Perdition.
The film is set during the Depression and revolves around Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks), a father who is also a gangster. He works for mob boss John Rooney (Paul Newman) who is rather like an adoptive father. When one of his sons, Michael Jnr (Tyler Hoechlin) sees what his father does for a living, he and Michael Snr must go on the road since many people will now be coming after them.
I found the plot to be a very intriguing one with interesting ideas and ambitions, and yes there are other films that depict children at the centre of dangerous and deadly situations, but most of the time they are unrealistic and outlandish situations. The events in the movie could actually happen or have happened, since we live in a world that has the kind of people this film features.
The performances in this film are quite well done particularity Hanks and Newman. What makes their performances so interesting and enjoyable is that you don't just see them as gangsters and how they handle their jobs, they also both have families and you see the differences in personality between their professional and personal lives. Hoechlin does a moderately good job with his performance; he and Hanks have some good chemistry in moments when nothing else is happening. And he handles the events of the film like anyone around the age of his character would- he gets frightened, he gets angry, but does not lose sight of the fact that he is only a child and if he wants any hope of making it out alive he will need his father's help. And his father really is a murderer whether he likes it or not.
The screenplay was written by David Self. In his efforts to translate this from page to screen, the end result gave me mixed feelings. On paper this could very easily feel like any kind of film in its genre, and in some regards that's what it is. It's full of gangster tropes, and if you think of one, the chances are that it's in there. The originality lies in the film's main story and themes.
The film is dedicated to the memory of the film's cinematographer, Conrad L Hall. He did very well with most of the cinematography, especially with the lighting that was used for the atmosphere in scenes that take place at night. It suits the change in tone from a period drama about family, to a drama about survival and the relationships between fathers and their sons.
The score was composed by a man who would later join Mendes on his Bond work, Thomas Newman. His score is one where, when a big moment comes or we are building up to something critical, the right kind of dramatic music is playing for the scene. If nothing needs to be said or heard the film can still succeed with total silence.
But like all films it does have weak points. A certain character is underused and could have been an ongoing presence in the movie. John Rooney's other son Connor (Daniel Craig) seems to feel that his adopted brother is bonding well with his father as if he is stealing him away from him. This could have been used more and would have added meaningful back story. However, although Connor is responsible for setting the movie's main events in motion, he is just pushed aside until it is time for the movie to come to a conclusion.
The movie also suffers from an insanely huge number of characters who are in it for no more than a few minutes and are then never seen again or developed. They appear to be there for no better reason than to show how vast the mafia organisation is.
In conclusion I found Road to Perdition to be quite an interesting viewing experience, it's certainly more of a drama than it is a gangster film. But it has good performances and an interesting premise.
With all that I'm going to give Road to Perdition a
B-
The film is set during the Depression and revolves around Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks), a father who is also a gangster. He works for mob boss John Rooney (Paul Newman) who is rather like an adoptive father. When one of his sons, Michael Jnr (Tyler Hoechlin) sees what his father does for a living, he and Michael Snr must go on the road since many people will now be coming after them.
I found the plot to be a very intriguing one with interesting ideas and ambitions, and yes there are other films that depict children at the centre of dangerous and deadly situations, but most of the time they are unrealistic and outlandish situations. The events in the movie could actually happen or have happened, since we live in a world that has the kind of people this film features.
The performances in this film are quite well done particularity Hanks and Newman. What makes their performances so interesting and enjoyable is that you don't just see them as gangsters and how they handle their jobs, they also both have families and you see the differences in personality between their professional and personal lives. Hoechlin does a moderately good job with his performance; he and Hanks have some good chemistry in moments when nothing else is happening. And he handles the events of the film like anyone around the age of his character would- he gets frightened, he gets angry, but does not lose sight of the fact that he is only a child and if he wants any hope of making it out alive he will need his father's help. And his father really is a murderer whether he likes it or not.
The screenplay was written by David Self. In his efforts to translate this from page to screen, the end result gave me mixed feelings. On paper this could very easily feel like any kind of film in its genre, and in some regards that's what it is. It's full of gangster tropes, and if you think of one, the chances are that it's in there. The originality lies in the film's main story and themes.
The film is dedicated to the memory of the film's cinematographer, Conrad L Hall. He did very well with most of the cinematography, especially with the lighting that was used for the atmosphere in scenes that take place at night. It suits the change in tone from a period drama about family, to a drama about survival and the relationships between fathers and their sons.
The score was composed by a man who would later join Mendes on his Bond work, Thomas Newman. His score is one where, when a big moment comes or we are building up to something critical, the right kind of dramatic music is playing for the scene. If nothing needs to be said or heard the film can still succeed with total silence.
But like all films it does have weak points. A certain character is underused and could have been an ongoing presence in the movie. John Rooney's other son Connor (Daniel Craig) seems to feel that his adopted brother is bonding well with his father as if he is stealing him away from him. This could have been used more and would have added meaningful back story. However, although Connor is responsible for setting the movie's main events in motion, he is just pushed aside until it is time for the movie to come to a conclusion.
The movie also suffers from an insanely huge number of characters who are in it for no more than a few minutes and are then never seen again or developed. They appear to be there for no better reason than to show how vast the mafia organisation is.
In conclusion I found Road to Perdition to be quite an interesting viewing experience, it's certainly more of a drama than it is a gangster film. But it has good performances and an interesting premise.
With all that I'm going to give Road to Perdition a
B-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)