J.J Abrams returns to finish what he started with Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. In true finale fashion, this film sees Finn and Rey (John Boyega and Daisy Ridley) and what little remains of the resistance, prepare to fight The First Order and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), one last time.
In terms of cast, 'ensemble' feels a bit of an understatement. On one side (excluding those mentioned above) we have the likes of Oscar Isaac, Domhnall Gleeson and Richard E Grant. Then on the other side you have Antony Daniels as C-3PO, Joonas Suotamo taking over Chewbacca, Jimmy Vee as R2-D2 and Billy Dee Williams - and Carrie Fisher, whose presence in the film, despite obvious circumstances, never seems distracting. Let's also not forget the much-anticipated and advertised return of Ian MacDiarmid as Emperor Palatine.
So what do they all bring to this film through their performances? Well, most just seem to settle for what worked before, they're likeable enough and you feel you can root for them. Most of them don't get that much screen time and perhaps their talents are being neglected. But I do think that Ridley and Driver work very well together and demonstrate their capabilities as dramatic actors with great credibility and potential. MacDiarmid, after 14 years of not playing the part, effortlessly falls back into the role. He may just be doing more of the same, but it worked back then, so why shouldn't it work now?
Moving on to the script by Abrams and Chris Terrio, it's everything you would expect from a climactic Star Wars film. There's plenty of action with lightsabre fights, lasers and spaceships, that are all tailored to feel very exciting and crowd-pleasing. But it does have problematic moments that can be found in some of the directions the characters go in, as they feel very sudden and not properly built up. Where the story chooses to pick up with some of these characters could have done with some more explaining, rather than just throwing us into the story with them in some random place with little or no information as to what happened before.
I have very little to say about Dan Mendel's cinematography, except for maybe some of the angles he tries out during any scenes involving flying spaceships, even if they come off as a cheap way to make the scene feel more exciting. A brief note on the effects by Industrial Light and Magic who provide nothing ground-breaking in the special effects but it's still decent work.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone to know that the most memorable parts of the score by John Williams are when he plays his most iconic pieces of Star Wars music. It would be easy for me to look down on this and put it down to a lack of inspiration, but in this case I don't think I really expected anything more than what I got.
Moving on to the flaws of the film, there are two that this film cant seem to shake- it's very repetitive and it drags. Even with a two hour and twenty-two minute runtime, and constant action onscreen, the film has quite a number of scenes that go for far too long, and some scenes feel like exact re-treads of scenes from earlier in this film and the two films that preceded it. The dialogue between the characters does change slightly, but what the scene is trying to convey stays the same. We have so many repeats of particular scenes that by the time all is revealed, it's hard to care.
So The Rise Of Skywalker has brought the saga to an end with good if mixed results. There are good performances from Ridley and Driver, lots of action, but questionable directions taken with the characters lack of explanations. But the film is flawed in scenes dragging on for too long and being far too repetitive. This may not be the grand finale to a beloved saga that the world was hoping for, but it's very clear to see that with a little luck, Star Wars can still be saved and have a future.
C+
Thank you for reading.
Saturday 21 December 2019
Saturday 7 December 2019
Ford Vs Ferrari Review
Director James Mangold delves into the world of motor racing with Ford v Ferrari (or Le Mans 66, depending on where you are in the world). This film is set in the 1960s and follows automotive engineer Carrol Shelby (Matt Damon) and British racing driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale) as they work together to create a car that they hope will win against Ferrari in an upcoming race. But as they work they also have to deal with interference from the corporate side of things, the limitations of the laws of physics and their own personal demons if anything is to be accomplished.
Damon has a clear understanding of the kind of character he is supposed to be playing but despite the effort he brings to his role he seems rather one-note and fails to give the same level of performance he has brought to some of his other leading roles. In the supporting roles we have the likes of Jon Bernthal, Noah Jupe and Tracy Letts who all play their parts well enough but are mostly as one-note as Damon, with Bernthal being the exception largely due to his distinctive voice.
Christian Bale seems to jump between two approaches to his part; on the one hand he brings his traditional immersion into the role which, for a while, appears to be working, complete with a strong English accent. At other times he goes for exaggeration, in a comedic or eccentric way, which makes it a little hard to take him seriously. But of course playing eccentrics has always been one of Bale's strengths.
The script comes to us from Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth and Jason Keller, and they have taken the time to flesh out the core characters of the story, explore the drama going on in Miles's family, the friction going in the warring car companies and of course have fitted in a lot of racing too. But its strongest point is its characterisations of real people. Some of the characters are very easy to like and to root for, while others may seem at first to be be rather one sided, but on a closer look their viewpoints can be readily understood as well.
The cinematography by Phedon Papamichael lacks memorable shots but compensates for that with a pleasing aesthetic that can especially be seen in the racing sequences, possessing a feeling of authenticity and intensity.
As to the score (by Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders) it's fairly forgettable but with the film being set in the 1960s it comes with a set of songs from that time, of which I Put A Spell On You stood out most for me.
There are two (related) defects with the film, firstly at two hours and thirty-two minutes it's simply too long. Ten to fifteen minutes could be trimmed without anything significant being lost. Also, the first act drags woefully as the main characters are introduced and the plot gets underway. These things have to be done but here they are executed painfully slowly.
Here is how I view Ford v Ferrari: it's got a competent but one-note performance from Matt Damon as well as several of the supporting cast; Christian Bale is good but uneven; a script that manages to balance a lot of ideas, but succeeds best with developing the characters; and a needlessly long running time and a very slow first act.
C
Thank you for reading.
Damon has a clear understanding of the kind of character he is supposed to be playing but despite the effort he brings to his role he seems rather one-note and fails to give the same level of performance he has brought to some of his other leading roles. In the supporting roles we have the likes of Jon Bernthal, Noah Jupe and Tracy Letts who all play their parts well enough but are mostly as one-note as Damon, with Bernthal being the exception largely due to his distinctive voice.
Christian Bale seems to jump between two approaches to his part; on the one hand he brings his traditional immersion into the role which, for a while, appears to be working, complete with a strong English accent. At other times he goes for exaggeration, in a comedic or eccentric way, which makes it a little hard to take him seriously. But of course playing eccentrics has always been one of Bale's strengths.
The script comes to us from Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth and Jason Keller, and they have taken the time to flesh out the core characters of the story, explore the drama going on in Miles's family, the friction going in the warring car companies and of course have fitted in a lot of racing too. But its strongest point is its characterisations of real people. Some of the characters are very easy to like and to root for, while others may seem at first to be be rather one sided, but on a closer look their viewpoints can be readily understood as well.
The cinematography by Phedon Papamichael lacks memorable shots but compensates for that with a pleasing aesthetic that can especially be seen in the racing sequences, possessing a feeling of authenticity and intensity.
As to the score (by Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders) it's fairly forgettable but with the film being set in the 1960s it comes with a set of songs from that time, of which I Put A Spell On You stood out most for me.
There are two (related) defects with the film, firstly at two hours and thirty-two minutes it's simply too long. Ten to fifteen minutes could be trimmed without anything significant being lost. Also, the first act drags woefully as the main characters are introduced and the plot gets underway. These things have to be done but here they are executed painfully slowly.
Here is how I view Ford v Ferrari: it's got a competent but one-note performance from Matt Damon as well as several of the supporting cast; Christian Bale is good but uneven; a script that manages to balance a lot of ideas, but succeeds best with developing the characters; and a needlessly long running time and a very slow first act.
C
Thank you for reading.
Sunday 1 December 2019
The Irishman Review
Martin Scorsese has made his first ever film for Netflix with The Irishman, where elderly mobster Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) recounts the story of how he went from a man who delivered meat to a very well-respected member of the Mafia. The film also delves into his relationships with his family and his mafia associates, and how he and the Mafia played a small part in some key moments in history.
As well as De Niro this film does have quite a remarkable cast. We have other Scorsese regulars like Joe Pesci and Harvey Keitel, and also the likes of Al Pacino, Stephen Graham, and in a rather unexpected turn to dramatic acting, Ray Romano. Most of these performances are passable enough - De Niro, Pesci, and Pacino manage to be charismatic and worthy of attention, but there is a constant feeling that they may just be looking to the usual movie gangster personas that they have made for themselves over the years. De Niro and Pacino in particular work quite well when it's just the two of them, with a really believable chemistry together. And despite their having been in a film together before, it's hard not to be at least half-interested in seeing these two greats act alongside each other again, which really helps given how the rest of the film is.
The script by Steve Zallian, adapted from a book called I Heard You Paint Houses, has a lot of material to get through. It's surprisingly dialogue-heavy and feels quite minimal in terms of violence, perhaps surprising given the kind of films Scorsese usually makes, especially his Mafia ones. It's maybe a bit odd why there's a sudden change of pace in an area where you would expect him to feel very much at home. Instead this film puts a greater emphasis on the characters, so that they can appear to us as fully fleshed-out human beings. This works in the film's favour, especially with some of the Mafia members as, instead of just seeing them as one-dimensional psychopaths,we see them as characters who one minute can be spending quality time with friends and family, then be off to blow up a building the next. While Scorsese may have gone minimal with the violence, I'm sure it will please someone somewhere to know the same hasn't happened with the film's liberal use of profanity - there's a lot of it.
I don't think I have much to say about Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography, except at the very start when my eyes briefly caught sight of what looked like very impressive camera work as it steadily went through a hallway taking us to the main character, and then the story could begin. Let's talk about the use of de-ageing for this film. This process has certainly been one of trial and error this year and with this film it's no different. De Niro is the one who has definitely come out best, since no matter what decade the scene is set in, he looks exactly like he actually did in that decade. But with some of the others the effort is there, but they just look like average young men.
The score is composed by Robbie Robertson, once of The Band. It tends to fade into the background compared to the more memorable songs that play throughout many scenes, mainly to enhance the setting of said scene. One or two of those songs stick in the mind but hardly any of the original score.
So far I have found some things in this film to praise, but like all films it's not without flaws. Starting with the one that people seem to be unanimous about, this film is simply too long. Three hours and twenty-seven minutes is way too long and even though this is counting the credits, without them the film is still close to three hours seventeen. And yes, I know that another film that was just over three hours long and is now the highest grossing of all time (Avengers: Endgame) did get a mainstream release back in April this year - but the difference is that film had enough to sustain its running time but I don't believe this one does.
Another flaw this film has is that most of the time it feels rather boring due to many scenes becoming very talky and dragging on for far too long. And when something slightly exciting does eventually happen, it's short-lived and soon back to boring conversations again.
The Irishman gives us good, if at times uninspired, performances from De Niro, Pacino and Pesci and the chemistry between the first two does manage to enhance their performances. We have a script that's very dialogue-heavy and minimal on violence, but chooses mainly to flesh out as characters so that they seem more like people. There is also some impressive work on the de-ageing process, especially on De Niro, and a score that is completely overshadowed by a selection of familiar hit songs from different decades. Finally the film is fatally flawed by its inordinate length, and with far too little going on to justify its runtime.
C-
Thank you for reading.
As well as De Niro this film does have quite a remarkable cast. We have other Scorsese regulars like Joe Pesci and Harvey Keitel, and also the likes of Al Pacino, Stephen Graham, and in a rather unexpected turn to dramatic acting, Ray Romano. Most of these performances are passable enough - De Niro, Pesci, and Pacino manage to be charismatic and worthy of attention, but there is a constant feeling that they may just be looking to the usual movie gangster personas that they have made for themselves over the years. De Niro and Pacino in particular work quite well when it's just the two of them, with a really believable chemistry together. And despite their having been in a film together before, it's hard not to be at least half-interested in seeing these two greats act alongside each other again, which really helps given how the rest of the film is.
The script by Steve Zallian, adapted from a book called I Heard You Paint Houses, has a lot of material to get through. It's surprisingly dialogue-heavy and feels quite minimal in terms of violence, perhaps surprising given the kind of films Scorsese usually makes, especially his Mafia ones. It's maybe a bit odd why there's a sudden change of pace in an area where you would expect him to feel very much at home. Instead this film puts a greater emphasis on the characters, so that they can appear to us as fully fleshed-out human beings. This works in the film's favour, especially with some of the Mafia members as, instead of just seeing them as one-dimensional psychopaths,we see them as characters who one minute can be spending quality time with friends and family, then be off to blow up a building the next. While Scorsese may have gone minimal with the violence, I'm sure it will please someone somewhere to know the same hasn't happened with the film's liberal use of profanity - there's a lot of it.
I don't think I have much to say about Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography, except at the very start when my eyes briefly caught sight of what looked like very impressive camera work as it steadily went through a hallway taking us to the main character, and then the story could begin. Let's talk about the use of de-ageing for this film. This process has certainly been one of trial and error this year and with this film it's no different. De Niro is the one who has definitely come out best, since no matter what decade the scene is set in, he looks exactly like he actually did in that decade. But with some of the others the effort is there, but they just look like average young men.
The score is composed by Robbie Robertson, once of The Band. It tends to fade into the background compared to the more memorable songs that play throughout many scenes, mainly to enhance the setting of said scene. One or two of those songs stick in the mind but hardly any of the original score.
So far I have found some things in this film to praise, but like all films it's not without flaws. Starting with the one that people seem to be unanimous about, this film is simply too long. Three hours and twenty-seven minutes is way too long and even though this is counting the credits, without them the film is still close to three hours seventeen. And yes, I know that another film that was just over three hours long and is now the highest grossing of all time (Avengers: Endgame) did get a mainstream release back in April this year - but the difference is that film had enough to sustain its running time but I don't believe this one does.
Another flaw this film has is that most of the time it feels rather boring due to many scenes becoming very talky and dragging on for far too long. And when something slightly exciting does eventually happen, it's short-lived and soon back to boring conversations again.
The Irishman gives us good, if at times uninspired, performances from De Niro, Pacino and Pesci and the chemistry between the first two does manage to enhance their performances. We have a script that's very dialogue-heavy and minimal on violence, but chooses mainly to flesh out as characters so that they seem more like people. There is also some impressive work on the de-ageing process, especially on De Niro, and a score that is completely overshadowed by a selection of familiar hit songs from different decades. Finally the film is fatally flawed by its inordinate length, and with far too little going on to justify its runtime.
C-
Thank you for reading.
Friday 29 November 2019
Knives Out Review
Let me ask you a question. What do you do when you make a film and the response to it turns it into one of the most divided options in recent history? The answer at least for Rian Johnson, who did just that, appears to be to make your next film a murder mystery throwback with the kind of ensemble cast that puts other ensembles to shame. The result is Knives Out in which an elderly crime novelist (Christopher Plummer) has his 85th birthday and invites his very dysfunctional family along for a party. He is then found dead the next morning, forcing the whole family to come back to the house, since a very-southern-accented detective (Daniel Craig) suspects one of them is the culprit.
In terms of the cast the word ensemble can't be stressed enough. We have Jamie Lee Curtis, Don Johnson, Michel Shannon, Toni Collette, Lakeith Stanfield and a newcomer in Ana De Armas. It's clear we have a very talented group of people here, but unfortunately none of their performances feels particularly engaging or worth paying much attention to, at least from that lot. Plummer is unusually charismatic in the few scenes he's in, despite being the oldest cast member. And I do have to admit I admired the efforts of Chris Evans in going out of his comfort zone to play a character who is far away from his many clean-cut good guy roles (one in particular) that he is known for. His enjoyment in the role is evident and it's also very refreshing to see him show some skill in dark comedy. While I wasn't the biggest fan of his performance, his efforts almost pay off. Of course we have to talk about Daniel Craig as Benoit Blanc; as mentioned before, he possesses a southern accent and all the personality traits that come with playing an eccentric detective. A mixture of those and Craig's commitment to the role are what make him easily the standout among the cast.
Johnson also wrote this film and he clearly has an understanding of how these whodunnit films are supposed to go. He goes for all the genre tropes, such as multiple people being asked where they were at what time, and there being several different motives for the murder. He also places quite a few twists and turns along the way. At times there was a sense of what felt like attempts to subvert the familiar tropes but they came off as forced and really unnatural, but I can't blame Johnson for trying. At the halfway point, the film has put us through so many of these twists, and relayed information we have already heard, just through different points of view, that the film can't help but feel bogged down. And for something that's a light-hearted mystery, it gets over-complicated and it becomes hard to stay interested in what is happening.
For cinematography we have Johnson regular Steve Yedlin who, if I'm going to give him praise for anything, comes up with a shot of the house at the start of the film which, combined with an unsettling background surrounding it, sets the appropriate tone for the next two hours; even if that tone is going to be the subject of much satire. There is also something to be said about aesthetic since the film goes from looking like an old-fashioned murder mystery with a middling budget, to a murder mystery set in rural America with a low budget - it's perhaps a bit inconsistent.
The score was composed by Nathan Johnson, and while I hate to admit this, the score is easy to overlook since so much of your attention needs to be on the plot, and I couldn't even remember a single piece of it hours later. Could it really have been much good?
Here is how I view Knives Out: it wants to pay tribute to a genre that still gives us good films from time to time; the ambition and passions of the director are clear, he has a cast of whom half don't particularly stand out while others can; but he couldn't help but indulge in forced subversion of tropes. There's a plot that gets too complicated in what should have been a very simple story. But worst of all, it's all dragged out for far too long. One day I'm sure the much-loved murder mystery genre will get the perfect tribute film, but personally I don't think we're there yet.
C+
Thank you for reading.
In terms of the cast the word ensemble can't be stressed enough. We have Jamie Lee Curtis, Don Johnson, Michel Shannon, Toni Collette, Lakeith Stanfield and a newcomer in Ana De Armas. It's clear we have a very talented group of people here, but unfortunately none of their performances feels particularly engaging or worth paying much attention to, at least from that lot. Plummer is unusually charismatic in the few scenes he's in, despite being the oldest cast member. And I do have to admit I admired the efforts of Chris Evans in going out of his comfort zone to play a character who is far away from his many clean-cut good guy roles (one in particular) that he is known for. His enjoyment in the role is evident and it's also very refreshing to see him show some skill in dark comedy. While I wasn't the biggest fan of his performance, his efforts almost pay off. Of course we have to talk about Daniel Craig as Benoit Blanc; as mentioned before, he possesses a southern accent and all the personality traits that come with playing an eccentric detective. A mixture of those and Craig's commitment to the role are what make him easily the standout among the cast.
Johnson also wrote this film and he clearly has an understanding of how these whodunnit films are supposed to go. He goes for all the genre tropes, such as multiple people being asked where they were at what time, and there being several different motives for the murder. He also places quite a few twists and turns along the way. At times there was a sense of what felt like attempts to subvert the familiar tropes but they came off as forced and really unnatural, but I can't blame Johnson for trying. At the halfway point, the film has put us through so many of these twists, and relayed information we have already heard, just through different points of view, that the film can't help but feel bogged down. And for something that's a light-hearted mystery, it gets over-complicated and it becomes hard to stay interested in what is happening.
For cinematography we have Johnson regular Steve Yedlin who, if I'm going to give him praise for anything, comes up with a shot of the house at the start of the film which, combined with an unsettling background surrounding it, sets the appropriate tone for the next two hours; even if that tone is going to be the subject of much satire. There is also something to be said about aesthetic since the film goes from looking like an old-fashioned murder mystery with a middling budget, to a murder mystery set in rural America with a low budget - it's perhaps a bit inconsistent.
The score was composed by Nathan Johnson, and while I hate to admit this, the score is easy to overlook since so much of your attention needs to be on the plot, and I couldn't even remember a single piece of it hours later. Could it really have been much good?
Here is how I view Knives Out: it wants to pay tribute to a genre that still gives us good films from time to time; the ambition and passions of the director are clear, he has a cast of whom half don't particularly stand out while others can; but he couldn't help but indulge in forced subversion of tropes. There's a plot that gets too complicated in what should have been a very simple story. But worst of all, it's all dragged out for far too long. One day I'm sure the much-loved murder mystery genre will get the perfect tribute film, but personally I don't think we're there yet.
C+
Thank you for reading.
Monday 28 October 2019
Terminator: Dark Fate Review
After seemingly failing twice to be brought into the 21st century successfully, with films where the only noteworthy aspects were trailers that gave everything away months in advance and a leaked tape of a lead actor ranting at a crew member on set, the Terminator series continues with Terminator: Dark Fate, directed by Tim Miller of Deadpool fame. He has brought back Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton and maybe to try to ensure a third failure is not on the cards, James Cameron is back as executive producer.
The plot sees two terminators sent from a machine-ruled future, one to kill someone who will play a key role in their downfall, the other to try to stop it. The machines send a terminator (Gabriel Luna) who can morph into two terminators at once, and the resistance send a soldier who is half human, half machine, with enhanced capabilities (Mackenzie Davis). But in a surprising turn of events, the target isn't Sarah or John Connor but a young factory girl named Dani (Natalia Reyes). And eventually she runs into the older version of Sarah (Linda Hamilton) that we saw in Terminator 2. And of course the T-800 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) joins in and they find themselves going all over America in hiding and figuring out a way to kill the evil terminator and save the future.
There's nothing special in the performances. Out of all the new cast Davis seems to be the one with the most charisma and can carry scenes with some level of believability. Reyes plays her character in a too-similar way to how Hamilton played Sarah in the first film, but where Hamilton knew where to stop screaming and calm down, Reyes just keeps on freaking out until it reaches the point of being annoying. As for Luca, he would be a worthy addition to the Terminator villains list if he wasn't so hard to take seriously. It's clear that he's meant to be influenced by the T-1000, but he just looks too ordinary and just doesn't fit the part at all, no matter what he does in an attempt to be frightening. As for Hamilton and Schwarzenegger, she plays the older Sarah Connor much like she did last time, except this time she has to come across as experienced and hardened by what she has done. Her efforts are noticed, if a bit underused. Arnold just does what he's done before, says serious things when the plot demands it and occasionally says things that due to his accent you find funny. Overdone is definitely the word, but is works and gets results.
The script, by David S Goyer, Billy Ray and Justin Rhodes feels like it's doing what The Force Awakens did for Star Wars. New plot, new and old characters and hitting some beats from a previous film while adding some minor touches of their own. This script is a new story but can't help but feel very similar to the first film in a lot of ways: woman on the run from a machine, with help from a resistance fighter. But things like throwing in another machine as a protector and a terminator who has a lot of blade weaponry and turns into liquid a lot, echoes the second film. While all that's going on, you have to develop your new plot and characters and perhaps expand the film's universe... well, some of that did pay off as the T-800 and Sarah feel developed and fleshed out as characters. For additions, we have a slightly better look at the AI-controlled future (the AI is now called Legion, not Skynet any more). But where the script definitely fails is in being way overlong, with dialogue-heavy scenes dragging on instead of letting action scenes speak for itself; that would give us more to be entertained by. Also, the lack of original ideas causes it to lack the engagement of the first two films, especially the second one, considering it was longer but never felt like it. We do spend some time in Mexico for a change, but it's really only there so that the terminators will have two places to rampage through. However, to end on a positive note, I will mention the action scenes. They're easy to appreciate when onscreen and carry the franchise's brutal, hard-hitting action style.
I don't feel as if there's much to say about Ken Seng's cinematography, expect for one mildly impressive shot that occurs during a chase scene. Besides that, no shots really stand out. But on the other hand, the film is surprisingly well lit.
Tom Holkenborg's score did not do anything for me. It just felt like really intense music to go with the fighting and chase scenes, and its more or less the same for the even darker future scenes. For Terminator, the key moment of the music will always be the familiar main theme. It can be heard a few times during the film and I feel it should be admired as, instead of building up to something or slowing down, it just plays the same tune over again - until the last few seconds, where a minor amount of intensity is added, but the difference is not too much or too little but just the right amount to end a main theme and begin the film.
To my mind, Terminator: Dark Fate may have the potential to pave a future for the franchise, with one good performance from a new cast member, and the old cast giving their best efforts with the material they have been given. The script, while filled with ideas and ways to develop characters, seems promising but also has an unhealthy attachment to the franchise's past that is seen repeatedly throughout the film. It's far from perfect, but as a move into the new century and only a few years away from when Judgement Day is supposed to happen, it's not a bad start.
C+
Thank you for reading.
The plot sees two terminators sent from a machine-ruled future, one to kill someone who will play a key role in their downfall, the other to try to stop it. The machines send a terminator (Gabriel Luna) who can morph into two terminators at once, and the resistance send a soldier who is half human, half machine, with enhanced capabilities (Mackenzie Davis). But in a surprising turn of events, the target isn't Sarah or John Connor but a young factory girl named Dani (Natalia Reyes). And eventually she runs into the older version of Sarah (Linda Hamilton) that we saw in Terminator 2. And of course the T-800 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) joins in and they find themselves going all over America in hiding and figuring out a way to kill the evil terminator and save the future.
There's nothing special in the performances. Out of all the new cast Davis seems to be the one with the most charisma and can carry scenes with some level of believability. Reyes plays her character in a too-similar way to how Hamilton played Sarah in the first film, but where Hamilton knew where to stop screaming and calm down, Reyes just keeps on freaking out until it reaches the point of being annoying. As for Luca, he would be a worthy addition to the Terminator villains list if he wasn't so hard to take seriously. It's clear that he's meant to be influenced by the T-1000, but he just looks too ordinary and just doesn't fit the part at all, no matter what he does in an attempt to be frightening. As for Hamilton and Schwarzenegger, she plays the older Sarah Connor much like she did last time, except this time she has to come across as experienced and hardened by what she has done. Her efforts are noticed, if a bit underused. Arnold just does what he's done before, says serious things when the plot demands it and occasionally says things that due to his accent you find funny. Overdone is definitely the word, but is works and gets results.
The script, by David S Goyer, Billy Ray and Justin Rhodes feels like it's doing what The Force Awakens did for Star Wars. New plot, new and old characters and hitting some beats from a previous film while adding some minor touches of their own. This script is a new story but can't help but feel very similar to the first film in a lot of ways: woman on the run from a machine, with help from a resistance fighter. But things like throwing in another machine as a protector and a terminator who has a lot of blade weaponry and turns into liquid a lot, echoes the second film. While all that's going on, you have to develop your new plot and characters and perhaps expand the film's universe... well, some of that did pay off as the T-800 and Sarah feel developed and fleshed out as characters. For additions, we have a slightly better look at the AI-controlled future (the AI is now called Legion, not Skynet any more). But where the script definitely fails is in being way overlong, with dialogue-heavy scenes dragging on instead of letting action scenes speak for itself; that would give us more to be entertained by. Also, the lack of original ideas causes it to lack the engagement of the first two films, especially the second one, considering it was longer but never felt like it. We do spend some time in Mexico for a change, but it's really only there so that the terminators will have two places to rampage through. However, to end on a positive note, I will mention the action scenes. They're easy to appreciate when onscreen and carry the franchise's brutal, hard-hitting action style.
I don't feel as if there's much to say about Ken Seng's cinematography, expect for one mildly impressive shot that occurs during a chase scene. Besides that, no shots really stand out. But on the other hand, the film is surprisingly well lit.
Tom Holkenborg's score did not do anything for me. It just felt like really intense music to go with the fighting and chase scenes, and its more or less the same for the even darker future scenes. For Terminator, the key moment of the music will always be the familiar main theme. It can be heard a few times during the film and I feel it should be admired as, instead of building up to something or slowing down, it just plays the same tune over again - until the last few seconds, where a minor amount of intensity is added, but the difference is not too much or too little but just the right amount to end a main theme and begin the film.
To my mind, Terminator: Dark Fate may have the potential to pave a future for the franchise, with one good performance from a new cast member, and the old cast giving their best efforts with the material they have been given. The script, while filled with ideas and ways to develop characters, seems promising but also has an unhealthy attachment to the franchise's past that is seen repeatedly throughout the film. It's far from perfect, but as a move into the new century and only a few years away from when Judgement Day is supposed to happen, it's not a bad start.
C+
Thank you for reading.
Wednesday 23 October 2019
Gemini Man Review
This appears to be turning into something of a habit for Ang Lee - he will take a project that's been around for a long time that no one wants and direct it himself. It worked it well enough for him with Life of Pi in 2012, and now similar circumstances have led to him directing Gemini Man.
Here Will Smith stars as an ageing assassin who feels it is time to retire from his violent yet illustrious career. But these plans are ultimately put on hold when it becomes clear that his former employers want him dead, and are sending to do it, the one target he could successfully kill. Who just so happens to an exact copy of himself.
Will Smith plays both versions of himself with his signature likeability, but at the same time, and this is especially noticeable with the older one, he gives the impression that he's bored and would rather be somewhere else. But there are a few moments scattered throughout where it seems he might be showing signs of improvement. As for the younger one, he's very much in the same situation and even though he looks like a young Will Smith he's missing the essential charisma that made Smith's previous work so enjoyable and successful.
Clive Owen plays the villain and tries to add some intensity to his role, but despite his best efforts it just comes off as another clichéd villain part for him. As for Benedict Wong and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, they are completely wasted in their roles; and really just there to be two people to accompany Smith through the film's main events who are not his younger self or the villain, and who also won't become irrelevant or (more than likely) be killed off after one scene.
The script went through multiple writers, including the very talented Brain Heglaund. But the final product has three people given credit, one of whom originally pitched the film. The script is formulaic in every sense of the word, after a while you can see everything that's going to or could possibly happen a mile away. And when it comes time for the big reveal that the film has been waiting to show us, it doesn't feel particularly worth it, for many reasons. The first of which is some of the worst pacing I have experienced in a film all year, it takes what feels like an hour before it gets to addressing it. And when it starts to, it tries to generate a sense of mystery - is it a clone or a son? More than likely, the audience have already guessed who he is and as it was highlighted in all the trailers and posters, the double comes as no big surprise. I know that sounds more like a fault of the advertising department, but when you have a sub-standard action film like this, and its only good idea (which has been done before anyway) is being used as the main selling point, then I would have to call out both the writers and whoever was in charge of advertising this film as the ones who were at fault.
One thing that's been discussed about this film from the start is the process of 'de-ageing' Smith. Some have praised it as a great technical achievement, while others have felt unconvinced. My view is that through the use of this relatively new technology, Smith has been successfully de-aged to his early twenties. I have been hard on this film but I have seen examples of good and bad digital de-ageing, and if I'm honest this has got to be one of the better ones. I am also aware that frame rates got a lot of talk leading up to the film's release. I don't know much on that subject, so all I will say is, I viewed it like I have viewed any other film, and it was perfectly fine.
Hans Zimmer collaborator Lorne Balfe composed the score, and within a few seconds of listening to the main theme it becomes more than clear he's taking a lot of influence from Zimmer, mainly the use of music that has an almost meditative feel to it. And considering what the film eventually turns into, no matter how high quality you're trying to make it by copying a very well respected composer, it can't help but feel out of place, and might be better suite to a different film.
So with Gemini Man we have a mostly wasted cast of talented individuals with only two actors showing any form of interest; a script that spent years being shopped around Hollywood, and when finally made it proved to be full of clichés; a potential saving grace in a reveal that was unfortunately used to be the film's main advertising point; one of 2019's better examples of the de-ageing process on Will Smith; and someone clearly looking to take the Hans Zimmer mantle with his score.
This was a movie with so much potential, and yet it had to go and be as bad as this. I have no idea what happened to make it turn out like this, I don't know if it's the film or its star, but one thing is clear, 2019 has definitely not been kind to Will Smith.
C+
Thank you for reading.
Here Will Smith stars as an ageing assassin who feels it is time to retire from his violent yet illustrious career. But these plans are ultimately put on hold when it becomes clear that his former employers want him dead, and are sending to do it, the one target he could successfully kill. Who just so happens to an exact copy of himself.
Will Smith plays both versions of himself with his signature likeability, but at the same time, and this is especially noticeable with the older one, he gives the impression that he's bored and would rather be somewhere else. But there are a few moments scattered throughout where it seems he might be showing signs of improvement. As for the younger one, he's very much in the same situation and even though he looks like a young Will Smith he's missing the essential charisma that made Smith's previous work so enjoyable and successful.
Clive Owen plays the villain and tries to add some intensity to his role, but despite his best efforts it just comes off as another clichéd villain part for him. As for Benedict Wong and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, they are completely wasted in their roles; and really just there to be two people to accompany Smith through the film's main events who are not his younger self or the villain, and who also won't become irrelevant or (more than likely) be killed off after one scene.
The script went through multiple writers, including the very talented Brain Heglaund. But the final product has three people given credit, one of whom originally pitched the film. The script is formulaic in every sense of the word, after a while you can see everything that's going to or could possibly happen a mile away. And when it comes time for the big reveal that the film has been waiting to show us, it doesn't feel particularly worth it, for many reasons. The first of which is some of the worst pacing I have experienced in a film all year, it takes what feels like an hour before it gets to addressing it. And when it starts to, it tries to generate a sense of mystery - is it a clone or a son? More than likely, the audience have already guessed who he is and as it was highlighted in all the trailers and posters, the double comes as no big surprise. I know that sounds more like a fault of the advertising department, but when you have a sub-standard action film like this, and its only good idea (which has been done before anyway) is being used as the main selling point, then I would have to call out both the writers and whoever was in charge of advertising this film as the ones who were at fault.
One thing that's been discussed about this film from the start is the process of 'de-ageing' Smith. Some have praised it as a great technical achievement, while others have felt unconvinced. My view is that through the use of this relatively new technology, Smith has been successfully de-aged to his early twenties. I have been hard on this film but I have seen examples of good and bad digital de-ageing, and if I'm honest this has got to be one of the better ones. I am also aware that frame rates got a lot of talk leading up to the film's release. I don't know much on that subject, so all I will say is, I viewed it like I have viewed any other film, and it was perfectly fine.
Hans Zimmer collaborator Lorne Balfe composed the score, and within a few seconds of listening to the main theme it becomes more than clear he's taking a lot of influence from Zimmer, mainly the use of music that has an almost meditative feel to it. And considering what the film eventually turns into, no matter how high quality you're trying to make it by copying a very well respected composer, it can't help but feel out of place, and might be better suite to a different film.
So with Gemini Man we have a mostly wasted cast of talented individuals with only two actors showing any form of interest; a script that spent years being shopped around Hollywood, and when finally made it proved to be full of clichés; a potential saving grace in a reveal that was unfortunately used to be the film's main advertising point; one of 2019's better examples of the de-ageing process on Will Smith; and someone clearly looking to take the Hans Zimmer mantle with his score.
This was a movie with so much potential, and yet it had to go and be as bad as this. I have no idea what happened to make it turn out like this, I don't know if it's the film or its star, but one thing is clear, 2019 has definitely not been kind to Will Smith.
C+
Thank you for reading.
Thursday 10 October 2019
Joker Review
Ten years ago Todd Phillips directed the first of his Hangover trilogy, now he's directed Joker. Which has resulted in divisive reviews, walkouts, and even cinemas refusing to show it. Since I have seen it and have just about the right amount of information on it, let me lay it all out for you.
Firstly, it's set in 1981, in Gotham city obviously, but has no ties to any particular Batman story. Instead it goes for more of a not-so-subtle Scorsese influence.
The main character named Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is a clown for hire by day, and aspiring comedian by night. He has a condition that causes him to burst into fits of laugher at any time, and a series of setbacks in his professional life, and some shocks in his personal life, send him down a path that sees him turn into one of the most iconic villains of all time.
This film sets out to be different from all the other ones based on DC properties, and it succeeds, there's very little action, at least until the final few minutes; the fun sense of humour is gone; and it's replaced by a very dark and morbid one. The whole film's aesthetic is also very gritty, bleak and depressive, from the barely-lit interiors to the city of little to no sunshine. And of course there's the violence - which was minimal. And what does occur does feel like it's only there for shock value. But there are movies that have more violence in them, but just don't take it as seriously as this film does. If you want an idea of how graphically violent this movie, I can sum it up like this. It's less graphic than the film that influenced it most (Taxi Driver). All this is somewhat impressive, but due to DC studios' bad track record with their films, from which they have only recently started to recover, they have been up against the ever-growing popularity of MARVEL. It also can't help but feel pretentious and desperate. They have made it clear they want to do something very different with their films, but given the response to this one, maybe they should re-evaluate their strategy and take less drastic and smaller steps.
Phoenix isn't the only big name here, there's also Zazie Beetz as a single mother who may or may not be Arthur's girlfriend. She only appears in a handful of scenes, but plays her role well enough. There's also Brett Cullen who gives us a unique portrayal of Thomas Wayne. He comes across as quite capable in the role, but looking closer there's no escaping the fact this part was meant for Alec Baldwin. Bringing in Cullen as a last minute replacement, he feels like he's imitating Baldwin. Bryan Tyree Henry also has a role as an asylum clerk that feels thankless, it could have been played by anyone so it comes as no surprise that he seems uninterested and plays the part in a quite passive way.
Now on to the man himself, Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck AKA Joker. Phoenix immerses himself completely in the role with admirable dedication, but just seems very unlikeable and hard to sympathise with in any way. It also doesn't help that he goes off the rails so many times and so quickly that investment in his performance is nearly impossible.
Moving on to the script written by the director and Scott Silver, it's clear the script understands that this is about one main character and his standalone story in a very well-known world. Apart from some character names, other pieces of that world are used in surprising moderation. But then the problems show. This film's Scorsese influence eventually turns it into a rip-off a Taxi Driver, mainly due to the fact that both films deal with men slowly drifting into insanity. But the key difference with the two is, the protagonist of Taxi Driver actually seemed like he had at least a shred of decency in him, Arthur Fleck has none.
And just to bring the Scorsese connection full circle, Robert De Niro co-stars as a chat show host, who might just be the film's only likeable character and he's basically playing a homage to a character he played in another Scorsese film (The King of Comedy). He even admitted to that in interview.
On to the score composed by Hildur Guðnadóttir, and she has tried to use her skill as a cellist to create a score that's unsettling, and keeps the audience on its toes. But after a while you adjust and it loses the unsettling feeling that it had in the beginning.
This film claims to have a message about what role society might have in creating a psychopath like Joker, but if that is the message, it's not as clear as it thinks it is.
The way I view Joker is this, its got ambitions that maybe cross the line into being pretentious, dedicated but too off the rails and an unlikeable performance from the lead actor. And while promising its own story, it has maybe taken a bit much from the films that influenced it. As I said before, is this the way DC studios want to move forward? Maybe they should re-evaluate their position first.
In future if anyone ever asks me what I thought of this film, the only answer I can hope to give is that it gave me only negative thoughts.
C-
Firstly, it's set in 1981, in Gotham city obviously, but has no ties to any particular Batman story. Instead it goes for more of a not-so-subtle Scorsese influence.
The main character named Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is a clown for hire by day, and aspiring comedian by night. He has a condition that causes him to burst into fits of laugher at any time, and a series of setbacks in his professional life, and some shocks in his personal life, send him down a path that sees him turn into one of the most iconic villains of all time.
This film sets out to be different from all the other ones based on DC properties, and it succeeds, there's very little action, at least until the final few minutes; the fun sense of humour is gone; and it's replaced by a very dark and morbid one. The whole film's aesthetic is also very gritty, bleak and depressive, from the barely-lit interiors to the city of little to no sunshine. And of course there's the violence - which was minimal. And what does occur does feel like it's only there for shock value. But there are movies that have more violence in them, but just don't take it as seriously as this film does. If you want an idea of how graphically violent this movie, I can sum it up like this. It's less graphic than the film that influenced it most (Taxi Driver). All this is somewhat impressive, but due to DC studios' bad track record with their films, from which they have only recently started to recover, they have been up against the ever-growing popularity of MARVEL. It also can't help but feel pretentious and desperate. They have made it clear they want to do something very different with their films, but given the response to this one, maybe they should re-evaluate their strategy and take less drastic and smaller steps.
Phoenix isn't the only big name here, there's also Zazie Beetz as a single mother who may or may not be Arthur's girlfriend. She only appears in a handful of scenes, but plays her role well enough. There's also Brett Cullen who gives us a unique portrayal of Thomas Wayne. He comes across as quite capable in the role, but looking closer there's no escaping the fact this part was meant for Alec Baldwin. Bringing in Cullen as a last minute replacement, he feels like he's imitating Baldwin. Bryan Tyree Henry also has a role as an asylum clerk that feels thankless, it could have been played by anyone so it comes as no surprise that he seems uninterested and plays the part in a quite passive way.
Now on to the man himself, Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck AKA Joker. Phoenix immerses himself completely in the role with admirable dedication, but just seems very unlikeable and hard to sympathise with in any way. It also doesn't help that he goes off the rails so many times and so quickly that investment in his performance is nearly impossible.
Moving on to the script written by the director and Scott Silver, it's clear the script understands that this is about one main character and his standalone story in a very well-known world. Apart from some character names, other pieces of that world are used in surprising moderation. But then the problems show. This film's Scorsese influence eventually turns it into a rip-off a Taxi Driver, mainly due to the fact that both films deal with men slowly drifting into insanity. But the key difference with the two is, the protagonist of Taxi Driver actually seemed like he had at least a shred of decency in him, Arthur Fleck has none.
And just to bring the Scorsese connection full circle, Robert De Niro co-stars as a chat show host, who might just be the film's only likeable character and he's basically playing a homage to a character he played in another Scorsese film (The King of Comedy). He even admitted to that in interview.
On to the score composed by Hildur Guðnadóttir, and she has tried to use her skill as a cellist to create a score that's unsettling, and keeps the audience on its toes. But after a while you adjust and it loses the unsettling feeling that it had in the beginning.
This film claims to have a message about what role society might have in creating a psychopath like Joker, but if that is the message, it's not as clear as it thinks it is.
The way I view Joker is this, its got ambitions that maybe cross the line into being pretentious, dedicated but too off the rails and an unlikeable performance from the lead actor. And while promising its own story, it has maybe taken a bit much from the films that influenced it. As I said before, is this the way DC studios want to move forward? Maybe they should re-evaluate their position first.
In future if anyone ever asks me what I thought of this film, the only answer I can hope to give is that it gave me only negative thoughts.
C-
Monday 16 September 2019
IT Chapter Two Review
IT Chapter Two is the much anticipated second part to Andy Muschietti's adaption of the best-selling novel by Stephen King. And the plot this time revolves around all the members of the losers' club all returning to Derry to fight Pennywise the Dancing Clown, and hopefully put an end to him once and for all, while also dealing with forgotten memories and some unresolved issues of their childhoods.
Obviously we have a new cast playing the adult versions of the main characters, talents like James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain and Bill Hader and a few others that are not as well known. I feel slightly conflicted about the performances, as no one really stands out on their own, but when they're all together the on-screen chemistry was very convincing. And I'm also aware of all the praise being directed at Hader, but I just see him as the comedic one in the group, who does get serious once or twice but they all do at some point. I really wasn't too sure how or where he was supposed to be giving this great standout performance. And in the matter of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise, I take no pleasure in reporting that whatever it was that made him so effective in the first one, is long gone here and he's only good for cheap jump scares.
In some flashback sequences the original cast have been digitally de-aged. They can still play their characters well though, and you really only notice it if you know what to look for... and then notice some people seem taller than others! There's also a really enjoyable cameo that if anyone gets confused at, then why did you see this film?
Gary Dauberman returns to write the script and for all those people who complain of adaptations not being faithful (mostly) to the source material, this will please them as this script is very faithful to the book in quite a lot of ways.
The first few minutes refamiliarise us with the film's idea of violence and intensity in a very brutal way, before rushing through character introductions. But we do believe it's the same people, just older. So the film can get its characters where they need to be so that things can get going. Once things do start to pick up, a pattern starts to show and that pattern goes something like this: scary scene, pleasant flashback, scary scene, two characters talking in the present. Sometimes it's slightly altered to feel different, but looking back it's really not. And of course this film being nearly three hours long, scenes drag and you can most certainly feel it. The scares are also weaker as well; I wasn't big on them in first film, but here after a while I just stopped caring when the signs of a scare were impending. I will commend this script on its faithfulness to the source material, understanding of character and world. But I must condemn it for weaker scares and an overabundance of dragged-out scenes.
While nothing stands out in the cinematography, one thing that has to be mentioned is what I felt was a sincere effort to recreate key environments from the novel. These include the lair of Pennywise, the Chinese restaurant and the run-down Marsh home. They look just as they are described in the book, with every little detail included.
Benjamin Wallfisch returns to compose the score for the film, but he mostly just recycles what people liked from his first score, you can especially hear the music from the first one's opening scene in this film quite a few times. Which I have no problem with, but it does show perhaps a lack fresh ideas, and that is what I have a problem with.
If this film has any unforgivable flaws it's this: when broken down this is a very simple story. Characters reunite and have some rather horrific moments along the way, with the addition of a few very talkative scenes. This all leads up to a final confrontation with the story's main villain, then they all leave and the story's over. All of these were done back in 1990 with the second half of the miniseries all done in just over an hour and a half. But here it's nearly three hours for little to no reason. The first one was just over two hours and did that fine, but the excuse that had is, being the first it had quite a bit more to set up. This film's bloated runtime is inexcusable and if it were shortened to just the important stuff, you would probably have a film the same length or a minute or two longer than the first.
IT Chapter Two succeeds with a cast who don't stand out on their own but show great chemistry when together. There's a villain who has unfortunately lost his touch. A script that rushes past important moments and lets other scenes go on for far too long, and is filled with far too many weak scares. It somewhat redeems itself in being faithful to the source material - nothing stands out visually but the levels of detail that have been put into recreating locations from the book are certainly praiseworthy. And despite the talented Benjamin Wallfisch returning, he does very little here beyond recycle his work from the first film. And the film is unforgivably flawed in having in inexcusable runtime for a very simple story.
And to think this was my most anticipated film of the year, I'm not pleased at all! But I am glad that it's over with now. I'm just going to worry about Doctor Sleep and Salem's Lot now which I just found out about, if anyone ever asks me about this film, I will always give the same answer, I didn't like the ending.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account. I'm going to give IT chapter two...
C+
Thank you for reading.
Obviously we have a new cast playing the adult versions of the main characters, talents like James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain and Bill Hader and a few others that are not as well known. I feel slightly conflicted about the performances, as no one really stands out on their own, but when they're all together the on-screen chemistry was very convincing. And I'm also aware of all the praise being directed at Hader, but I just see him as the comedic one in the group, who does get serious once or twice but they all do at some point. I really wasn't too sure how or where he was supposed to be giving this great standout performance. And in the matter of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise, I take no pleasure in reporting that whatever it was that made him so effective in the first one, is long gone here and he's only good for cheap jump scares.
In some flashback sequences the original cast have been digitally de-aged. They can still play their characters well though, and you really only notice it if you know what to look for... and then notice some people seem taller than others! There's also a really enjoyable cameo that if anyone gets confused at, then why did you see this film?
Gary Dauberman returns to write the script and for all those people who complain of adaptations not being faithful (mostly) to the source material, this will please them as this script is very faithful to the book in quite a lot of ways.
The first few minutes refamiliarise us with the film's idea of violence and intensity in a very brutal way, before rushing through character introductions. But we do believe it's the same people, just older. So the film can get its characters where they need to be so that things can get going. Once things do start to pick up, a pattern starts to show and that pattern goes something like this: scary scene, pleasant flashback, scary scene, two characters talking in the present. Sometimes it's slightly altered to feel different, but looking back it's really not. And of course this film being nearly three hours long, scenes drag and you can most certainly feel it. The scares are also weaker as well; I wasn't big on them in first film, but here after a while I just stopped caring when the signs of a scare were impending. I will commend this script on its faithfulness to the source material, understanding of character and world. But I must condemn it for weaker scares and an overabundance of dragged-out scenes.
While nothing stands out in the cinematography, one thing that has to be mentioned is what I felt was a sincere effort to recreate key environments from the novel. These include the lair of Pennywise, the Chinese restaurant and the run-down Marsh home. They look just as they are described in the book, with every little detail included.
Benjamin Wallfisch returns to compose the score for the film, but he mostly just recycles what people liked from his first score, you can especially hear the music from the first one's opening scene in this film quite a few times. Which I have no problem with, but it does show perhaps a lack fresh ideas, and that is what I have a problem with.
If this film has any unforgivable flaws it's this: when broken down this is a very simple story. Characters reunite and have some rather horrific moments along the way, with the addition of a few very talkative scenes. This all leads up to a final confrontation with the story's main villain, then they all leave and the story's over. All of these were done back in 1990 with the second half of the miniseries all done in just over an hour and a half. But here it's nearly three hours for little to no reason. The first one was just over two hours and did that fine, but the excuse that had is, being the first it had quite a bit more to set up. This film's bloated runtime is inexcusable and if it were shortened to just the important stuff, you would probably have a film the same length or a minute or two longer than the first.
IT Chapter Two succeeds with a cast who don't stand out on their own but show great chemistry when together. There's a villain who has unfortunately lost his touch. A script that rushes past important moments and lets other scenes go on for far too long, and is filled with far too many weak scares. It somewhat redeems itself in being faithful to the source material - nothing stands out visually but the levels of detail that have been put into recreating locations from the book are certainly praiseworthy. And despite the talented Benjamin Wallfisch returning, he does very little here beyond recycle his work from the first film. And the film is unforgivably flawed in having in inexcusable runtime for a very simple story.
And to think this was my most anticipated film of the year, I'm not pleased at all! But I am glad that it's over with now. I'm just going to worry about Doctor Sleep and Salem's Lot now which I just found out about, if anyone ever asks me about this film, I will always give the same answer, I didn't like the ending.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account. I'm going to give IT chapter two...
C+
Thank you for reading.
Thursday 15 August 2019
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood Review
Quentin Tarantino is back with Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, his ninth feature film, which of course features a huge ensemble cast that includes Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Al Pacino, and countless others.
The film takes place over three days in 1960s Los Angeles, and is about how a TV actor and his stuntman are struggling hard to stay relevant, and how other film stars and the people around them also navigate the world of the film industry. And of course we also have Charles Manson and his cult as a kind of backdrop.
The cast features a host of talent like the names above plus many more including some Tarantino regulars. All try to make the best of what they're given but it doesn't all work as well as it should. DiCaprio is good in his role, but fails to make much impact. Robbie unfortunately suffers a similar fate, despite playing a person who is crucial to the Charles Manson story. The well-recognised talents of Al Pacino are wasted and in the few scenes he's in, he feels reduced to nothing more than a presence. Brad Pitt as the stunt double was the only performance in the film I could call believable. He brought likeability and a good sense of humour to his role, and managed to somewhat save DiCaprio's performance by a small amount by demonstrating a believable chemistry with him.
This is of course written by Tarantino and one would anticipate that it's the kind of film he should have no problem with. He can pay tribute to old cinema, he can have moments where we see films within a film based on the exploitation genre. And of course he can have all the graphic violence and heavy profanity he wants.
But I take no pleasure in saying that mainly due to the writing, this feels less like a Tarantino film and more like a 1960s period drama with a style that strongly tries to resemble Tarantino. One of the script's faults is that it's full of scenes with very little to say that's interesting, scenes that go on for far too long that need to either be shortened or have worthwhile dialogue in them. I was just left waiting for something that was going to grab my attention and invest me in the plot, and for a long while, there was nothing that kept my interest.
Another failure of the script is that the characters are not that interesting or likeable. Only one character meets those criteria and I think it's fairly easy to see why. Also with Manson there were a whole range of possibilities that were never explored, such as what happened with Steve McQueen on the night of the killings? I think someone like Tarantino really could have had fun with this. Then there's Manson himself, who shows up once and we never really see him again. And it's not even until near the end of the film, during an encounter with the Manson family, that the film finally begins to look like a Tarantino film. Were those final moments enjoyable? Yes. Will it help the experience it you were bored by the rest of the film? Probably not.
Like many of Tarantino's films, this one has a very retro soundtrack, which I feel is intended to make the 1960s setting all the more credible. Here we have musicians like Aretha Franklin, Deep Purple, The Rolling Stones and The Mamas and The Papas. A well-chosen soundtrack with some very well-liked songs. But I suspect that Tarantino knew about last year's film Bad Times at the El Royale. Not just for the fact that it was also set in the 1960s and had a more charismatic Manson rip-off played by Chris Hemsworth. But the fact that the same song plays in both films when cult-related things start to happen in the film's final minutes. I know it's a small detail, but when you notice that similarity as quickly as I did, it's hard not to raise an eyebrow. There is also another song that is played in both this film and El Royale, but the scences in which they are played are slightly different, so I will be merciful and overlook it.
I do respect Tarantino for trying something that feels so far out of his comfort zone, and his passion for the project is clear. But here we have wasted performances by hugely talented actors where only one really stands out, overlong scenes filled with uninteresting characters and equally boring dialogue. Great potential wasted throughout. And a soundtrack which, while impressive, does have one part that does seem a bit recycled from another film.
And with that, I give Once Upon A Time In Hollywood...
C
Thank you for reading.
The film takes place over three days in 1960s Los Angeles, and is about how a TV actor and his stuntman are struggling hard to stay relevant, and how other film stars and the people around them also navigate the world of the film industry. And of course we also have Charles Manson and his cult as a kind of backdrop.
The cast features a host of talent like the names above plus many more including some Tarantino regulars. All try to make the best of what they're given but it doesn't all work as well as it should. DiCaprio is good in his role, but fails to make much impact. Robbie unfortunately suffers a similar fate, despite playing a person who is crucial to the Charles Manson story. The well-recognised talents of Al Pacino are wasted and in the few scenes he's in, he feels reduced to nothing more than a presence. Brad Pitt as the stunt double was the only performance in the film I could call believable. He brought likeability and a good sense of humour to his role, and managed to somewhat save DiCaprio's performance by a small amount by demonstrating a believable chemistry with him.
This is of course written by Tarantino and one would anticipate that it's the kind of film he should have no problem with. He can pay tribute to old cinema, he can have moments where we see films within a film based on the exploitation genre. And of course he can have all the graphic violence and heavy profanity he wants.
But I take no pleasure in saying that mainly due to the writing, this feels less like a Tarantino film and more like a 1960s period drama with a style that strongly tries to resemble Tarantino. One of the script's faults is that it's full of scenes with very little to say that's interesting, scenes that go on for far too long that need to either be shortened or have worthwhile dialogue in them. I was just left waiting for something that was going to grab my attention and invest me in the plot, and for a long while, there was nothing that kept my interest.
Another failure of the script is that the characters are not that interesting or likeable. Only one character meets those criteria and I think it's fairly easy to see why. Also with Manson there were a whole range of possibilities that were never explored, such as what happened with Steve McQueen on the night of the killings? I think someone like Tarantino really could have had fun with this. Then there's Manson himself, who shows up once and we never really see him again. And it's not even until near the end of the film, during an encounter with the Manson family, that the film finally begins to look like a Tarantino film. Were those final moments enjoyable? Yes. Will it help the experience it you were bored by the rest of the film? Probably not.
Like many of Tarantino's films, this one has a very retro soundtrack, which I feel is intended to make the 1960s setting all the more credible. Here we have musicians like Aretha Franklin, Deep Purple, The Rolling Stones and The Mamas and The Papas. A well-chosen soundtrack with some very well-liked songs. But I suspect that Tarantino knew about last year's film Bad Times at the El Royale. Not just for the fact that it was also set in the 1960s and had a more charismatic Manson rip-off played by Chris Hemsworth. But the fact that the same song plays in both films when cult-related things start to happen in the film's final minutes. I know it's a small detail, but when you notice that similarity as quickly as I did, it's hard not to raise an eyebrow. There is also another song that is played in both this film and El Royale, but the scences in which they are played are slightly different, so I will be merciful and overlook it.
I do respect Tarantino for trying something that feels so far out of his comfort zone, and his passion for the project is clear. But here we have wasted performances by hugely talented actors where only one really stands out, overlong scenes filled with uninteresting characters and equally boring dialogue. Great potential wasted throughout. And a soundtrack which, while impressive, does have one part that does seem a bit recycled from another film.
And with that, I give Once Upon A Time In Hollywood...
C
Thank you for reading.
Saturday 10 August 2019
Blinded By The Light Review
Blinded by The Light was directed by Gurinder Chadha and stars Vivek Kalra, Hayley Atwell, Rob Brydon, Kulvinder Ghir, Neil Williams, Dean-Charles Chapman and Aaron Phagura.
The plot revolves around a teenager who writes poetry as a way of dealing with the very difficualt life around him. But his life changes when through a classmate he is introducued to the music of Bruce Springsteen. And through the music he finds a way to express himself in his own voice and maybe even find a way of achieving his dreams.
The performances were fine and many of the actors were clearly invested in the film. But all the characters being portrayed all felt either clichéd or exaggerated in some scenes. And despite the best efforts of lead actor Viveik Karla as Javid, although he does have moments where he shows great potential he fails to use that potential to enrich his performance. I instead we are left with what feels like a standard likeability, common to the protagonists of this genre of films. I do think there is talent here, it just not being put to good use.
The film was written by Paul Mayeda Burges, Gurinder Chada and Sarfeaz Manoor. They succeed in making the film feel like a success story with a slightly musical twist, told from an unusual point of view. But they do miss the opportunity to address things that might have made their film a bit more interesting and noteworthy, and when these things are given some attention it feels like a subplot with minimal effort put in. The script is far from perfect, it understands its basic ideas. But if it's going to have any kind of subplot that relates to the main plot in any way, it should at least have the decency to seem equally committed to both.
The film was shot by Ben Smithard, and while most of the shots are nothing noteworthy there was one visual choice that stood out to me, and that was when Javid is listening to songs on his Walkman and the lyrics sometimes appear on-screen. But some of them are singled out and I thought this was an interesting way to point out which words are supposed to mean something of importance to this character.
The score was composed by A.R. Rahman. Unfortunately while I'm sure his score was of a high standard, It was hard for me to take any notice of it, most likely due to its being overshadowed by the constant use of popular eighties songs - not just those of Bruce Springsteen, but bands like Pet Shop Boys, and Mental As Anything also get songs played. I think most of them just help to make the 80s setting seem authentic. This is all very well but the downside that Springsteen gets less attention, which is unfortunate given how much of a role his music plays in the film. The use of all these songs from this particular period just takes your attention away from what might actually be a very good score.
The one flaw that affected my enjoyment of this film was that it felt like it went on for far too long, there were things that maybe were important to the plot but chose to get to them in a very slow paced fashion. It also doesn't help that there's one scene in a club that just comes off as needless and a way to fill up the nearly two hour runtime. And by the time the film was almost over, I had very little attention left for it.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Blinded By The Light has fine performances, with potential evident in its lead; a script that achieves its core aims but dismisses the opportunity to address subjects that might make it a bit more interesting; no standout shots in the cinematography, but one interesting visual choice; and a score that is sadly overshadowed by a constant of use of eighties songs by artists other than the intended subject of the film; and is seriously flawed in being too long and trying to justify its length with scenes that don't advance any aspects of the film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Blinded By The Light...
C-
Thank You For Reading.
The plot revolves around a teenager who writes poetry as a way of dealing with the very difficualt life around him. But his life changes when through a classmate he is introducued to the music of Bruce Springsteen. And through the music he finds a way to express himself in his own voice and maybe even find a way of achieving his dreams.
The performances were fine and many of the actors were clearly invested in the film. But all the characters being portrayed all felt either clichéd or exaggerated in some scenes. And despite the best efforts of lead actor Viveik Karla as Javid, although he does have moments where he shows great potential he fails to use that potential to enrich his performance. I instead we are left with what feels like a standard likeability, common to the protagonists of this genre of films. I do think there is talent here, it just not being put to good use.
The film was written by Paul Mayeda Burges, Gurinder Chada and Sarfeaz Manoor. They succeed in making the film feel like a success story with a slightly musical twist, told from an unusual point of view. But they do miss the opportunity to address things that might have made their film a bit more interesting and noteworthy, and when these things are given some attention it feels like a subplot with minimal effort put in. The script is far from perfect, it understands its basic ideas. But if it's going to have any kind of subplot that relates to the main plot in any way, it should at least have the decency to seem equally committed to both.
The film was shot by Ben Smithard, and while most of the shots are nothing noteworthy there was one visual choice that stood out to me, and that was when Javid is listening to songs on his Walkman and the lyrics sometimes appear on-screen. But some of them are singled out and I thought this was an interesting way to point out which words are supposed to mean something of importance to this character.
The score was composed by A.R. Rahman. Unfortunately while I'm sure his score was of a high standard, It was hard for me to take any notice of it, most likely due to its being overshadowed by the constant use of popular eighties songs - not just those of Bruce Springsteen, but bands like Pet Shop Boys, and Mental As Anything also get songs played. I think most of them just help to make the 80s setting seem authentic. This is all very well but the downside that Springsteen gets less attention, which is unfortunate given how much of a role his music plays in the film. The use of all these songs from this particular period just takes your attention away from what might actually be a very good score.
The one flaw that affected my enjoyment of this film was that it felt like it went on for far too long, there were things that maybe were important to the plot but chose to get to them in a very slow paced fashion. It also doesn't help that there's one scene in a club that just comes off as needless and a way to fill up the nearly two hour runtime. And by the time the film was almost over, I had very little attention left for it.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Blinded By The Light has fine performances, with potential evident in its lead; a script that achieves its core aims but dismisses the opportunity to address subjects that might make it a bit more interesting; no standout shots in the cinematography, but one interesting visual choice; and a score that is sadly overshadowed by a constant of use of eighties songs by artists other than the intended subject of the film; and is seriously flawed in being too long and trying to justify its length with scenes that don't advance any aspects of the film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Blinded By The Light...
C-
Thank You For Reading.
Saturday 3 August 2019
Hobbs And Shaw Review
Hobbs And Shaw was directed by David Leitch and stars Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Idris Elba, Vanessa Kirby and Helen Mirren.
The plot concerns the theft of a virus by a cybernetically-enhanced terrorist, and with very little options left, former FBI agent Luke Hobbs and Deckard Shaw are forced to team up to try and put a stop to the plans of a seemingly unstoppable villain.
The performances are good but unfortunately do not reach their full potential, Johnson and Statham play their characters well, but the chemistry shift from understandably hostile to acting like friends happens so abruptly that it lacks believability and just feels unnatural. Idris Elba unfortunately gives a very one-note performance that's quite clichéd and lacks in range and as a whole feels like a waste for someone with Elba's talents.
The film was written by Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce and it's very clear from their script that they understand what this film is. There's humorous dialogue between characters, multiple car chases and over the top action scenes. But what stood out to me about the script was the great amount of effort put in to flesh out some of the story's main characters. It gives them interesting reasons for doing what they do, and sheds light on some of their unexplored pasts. I would say that this script keeps what the fans love but does go in some slightly unexpected directions that for the most part work in its favour.
The film was shot by Jonathan Sela. While the shots are unremarkable, if any of them are going to be considered noteworthy, I would have to go with the ones that pan across a country landscape, as it's a relatively nice look at many different locations and acts as an effective backdrop for anything that is about to occur in the film. There's also a somewhat amusing visual sequence at the beginning where we see the morning routines of the two leading characters side by side. I thought it was amusing in the moment, but slipped my mind quite easily.
The score was composed by Tyler Bates, and it's easily forgettable with a heavy use of electronic music being the only thing that stands out. There are also a few popular songs that maybe fit well with the film's tone but failed to leave a lasting impression on me.
The one flaw that severely damaged my experience with this film would be its very apparent pacing issues. Especially in the first act, while the audience is waiting for the main story to get underway, the build-up (while mildly entertaining) is just really slowly paced and parts of it need to be cut. And the climactic fight at end is also a perfect example of this film's pacing issues.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Hobbs and Shaw has good performances but rushed character chemistry; a talented but wasted actor playing the villain; a good script that sticks to what fans of this franchise love, but also has some ideas of its own that it explores; some nice panning shots across landscapes; a score that's only made memorable by the heavy use of electronic music; and is severely flawed by inexcusable pacing issues that occur more than once and make the film feel longer than it actually is.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, im going to give Hobbs and Shaw...
C+
Thank you for reading.
The plot concerns the theft of a virus by a cybernetically-enhanced terrorist, and with very little options left, former FBI agent Luke Hobbs and Deckard Shaw are forced to team up to try and put a stop to the plans of a seemingly unstoppable villain.
The performances are good but unfortunately do not reach their full potential, Johnson and Statham play their characters well, but the chemistry shift from understandably hostile to acting like friends happens so abruptly that it lacks believability and just feels unnatural. Idris Elba unfortunately gives a very one-note performance that's quite clichéd and lacks in range and as a whole feels like a waste for someone with Elba's talents.
The film was written by Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce and it's very clear from their script that they understand what this film is. There's humorous dialogue between characters, multiple car chases and over the top action scenes. But what stood out to me about the script was the great amount of effort put in to flesh out some of the story's main characters. It gives them interesting reasons for doing what they do, and sheds light on some of their unexplored pasts. I would say that this script keeps what the fans love but does go in some slightly unexpected directions that for the most part work in its favour.
The film was shot by Jonathan Sela. While the shots are unremarkable, if any of them are going to be considered noteworthy, I would have to go with the ones that pan across a country landscape, as it's a relatively nice look at many different locations and acts as an effective backdrop for anything that is about to occur in the film. There's also a somewhat amusing visual sequence at the beginning where we see the morning routines of the two leading characters side by side. I thought it was amusing in the moment, but slipped my mind quite easily.
The score was composed by Tyler Bates, and it's easily forgettable with a heavy use of electronic music being the only thing that stands out. There are also a few popular songs that maybe fit well with the film's tone but failed to leave a lasting impression on me.
The one flaw that severely damaged my experience with this film would be its very apparent pacing issues. Especially in the first act, while the audience is waiting for the main story to get underway, the build-up (while mildly entertaining) is just really slowly paced and parts of it need to be cut. And the climactic fight at end is also a perfect example of this film's pacing issues.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Hobbs and Shaw has good performances but rushed character chemistry; a talented but wasted actor playing the villain; a good script that sticks to what fans of this franchise love, but also has some ideas of its own that it explores; some nice panning shots across landscapes; a score that's only made memorable by the heavy use of electronic music; and is severely flawed by inexcusable pacing issues that occur more than once and make the film feel longer than it actually is.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, im going to give Hobbs and Shaw...
C+
Thank you for reading.
Saturday 27 July 2019
The Current War Review
The Current War was directed by Alfonso Gomez-Rejon and stars Benedict Cumberbatch, Michael Shannon, Katherine Waterson, Tom Holland, Tuppence Middleton, Matthew Macfadyen and Nicholas Hoult.
The plot revolves around the race by scientists Thomas Edison, and partners George Westinghouse and Nikolai Tesla, to produce a form of electricity that's cheap and safe, so that it can go on to power the world.
For performances, Cumberbatch as Edison certainly makes himself stand out reasonably well. He manages to pull off an American accent quite well and demonstrates that this kind of character can be someone the audience is supposed to root for and like one minute, then maybe not be so sure about the next. Tom Holland was fine, his character was fairly likeable and had a very believable dynamic with Cumberbatch. Michael Shannon as Westinghouse was just average, I know what Shannon is capable of as an actor, it's just that here he didn't really live up to those standards. And lastly Nicholas Hoult as Tesla didn't really stand out to me in any way. It just felt like he was trying to prove some kind of versatility by having seemingly perfected a Serbian accent
The film was written by Matthew Mitnick and what stood out to me about the script was how it took its subject matter and the principal people involved and told their story in a way that was informed but not too complicated. I think that was a good choice because it means that those who are experts on the subject matter of this film can go and see it and be satisfied with its depiction; but it's also prepared to cater to the needs of those who don't know too much about the scientific aspects of the film. I would call this an impressive script that addresses its subject matter in a very crowd-pleasing way.
The film was shot by Chung-hoon Chung, and most of his shots for the film are fine, there's one standout shot right at the start of a group of people walking around in darkness. In a way it summed up what the film was going to be about. There are also some strange visual choices at times, being mostly just strip-shaped pictures of animals that come out of nowhere. And I'm sure I saw some editing choices in the film that resembled fast cutting. I know I said something similar in a recent review, but fast cuts in a period drama are beyond out of place and they feel slightly disorientating.
The score was composed by Hauschka and Dustin O`Halloran, and to my disappointment their work failed to impress. It just sounds like another generic period drama score with barely noticeable sounds occasionally put in that are meant to help to give it some form of distinction that it unfortunately does not achieve. It's also very forgettable, but with period drama scores it's a situation where once you have heard one, you have heard them all.
The one flaw that severely damaged my viewing experience with this film is that it was very slow at times, and despite a somewhat well-paced opening it eventually slowed down, scenes dragged on for far too long and it mostly got boring. And the pacing becomes such a problem to a point where it becomes a struggle just to stay invested in the film and its story.
The conclusions that I draw from this are that: The Current War has good performances; a script that manages to be both impressive and crowd-pleasing; one standout shot in the cinematography that sets up the film well, along with some noteworthy visuals; and a very generic score that's very easily forgettable.. But it's severely flawed in its terribly slow pacing and fails to maintain what was a relatively well-paced start.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give The Current War...
C-
Thank you for reading.
The plot revolves around the race by scientists Thomas Edison, and partners George Westinghouse and Nikolai Tesla, to produce a form of electricity that's cheap and safe, so that it can go on to power the world.
For performances, Cumberbatch as Edison certainly makes himself stand out reasonably well. He manages to pull off an American accent quite well and demonstrates that this kind of character can be someone the audience is supposed to root for and like one minute, then maybe not be so sure about the next. Tom Holland was fine, his character was fairly likeable and had a very believable dynamic with Cumberbatch. Michael Shannon as Westinghouse was just average, I know what Shannon is capable of as an actor, it's just that here he didn't really live up to those standards. And lastly Nicholas Hoult as Tesla didn't really stand out to me in any way. It just felt like he was trying to prove some kind of versatility by having seemingly perfected a Serbian accent
The film was written by Matthew Mitnick and what stood out to me about the script was how it took its subject matter and the principal people involved and told their story in a way that was informed but not too complicated. I think that was a good choice because it means that those who are experts on the subject matter of this film can go and see it and be satisfied with its depiction; but it's also prepared to cater to the needs of those who don't know too much about the scientific aspects of the film. I would call this an impressive script that addresses its subject matter in a very crowd-pleasing way.
The film was shot by Chung-hoon Chung, and most of his shots for the film are fine, there's one standout shot right at the start of a group of people walking around in darkness. In a way it summed up what the film was going to be about. There are also some strange visual choices at times, being mostly just strip-shaped pictures of animals that come out of nowhere. And I'm sure I saw some editing choices in the film that resembled fast cutting. I know I said something similar in a recent review, but fast cuts in a period drama are beyond out of place and they feel slightly disorientating.
The score was composed by Hauschka and Dustin O`Halloran, and to my disappointment their work failed to impress. It just sounds like another generic period drama score with barely noticeable sounds occasionally put in that are meant to help to give it some form of distinction that it unfortunately does not achieve. It's also very forgettable, but with period drama scores it's a situation where once you have heard one, you have heard them all.
The one flaw that severely damaged my viewing experience with this film is that it was very slow at times, and despite a somewhat well-paced opening it eventually slowed down, scenes dragged on for far too long and it mostly got boring. And the pacing becomes such a problem to a point where it becomes a struggle just to stay invested in the film and its story.
The conclusions that I draw from this are that: The Current War has good performances; a script that manages to be both impressive and crowd-pleasing; one standout shot in the cinematography that sets up the film well, along with some noteworthy visuals; and a very generic score that's very easily forgettable.. But it's severely flawed in its terribly slow pacing and fails to maintain what was a relatively well-paced start.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give The Current War...
C-
Thank you for reading.
Saturday 20 July 2019
The Lion King Review
The Lion King is directed by Jon Favreau and features the voices of Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chitwel Ejifor, Alfre Woodward, Billy Eichner, John Kani, John Oliver, Beyoncé Knowles Carter and James Earl Jones as the voice of Mufasa.
The plot is about a young lion whose destiny to be king is put in danger following a tragedy which leads to him being exiled, and years later as an adult he must find a way to take back his kingdom and his rightful place as king.
The performances are unfortunately quite poor, James Earl Jones brings proming charm and likeability to the role of Mufasa, despite playing the same character and saying almost exactly the same lines as over twenty years ago. Chitwel Ejifor tries (and fails) to bring any sense of personality beyond that of a conventional villain, and he's quite easy to ignore. Another notable performance is John Oliver as Zazu. He makes no particular effort to try and do his own take on the character, but instead spends most of the film trying way too hard to sound like the original voice actor. And it gets to the point where it becomes so obvious that's what he's doing that it just becomes distracting.
The film was written by Jeff Nathanson and what stood out to me most about the script was how everything stayed the same as the original, in a shot for shot manner. From famous scenes, to the dialogue, to the songs. All of them just about stay untouched. And the changes that are made to the film are so minimal, being only a few lines and some scenes being stretched out to meet the film's longer runtime. I just see it as a script with more copying put into to it than actual hard work and effort.
The film was shot by Caleb Deschanel, and this film does somewhat redeem itself with the visuals. Although there's no standout moment for the cinematography you can't deny that film's visuals are quite impressive - Pride Rock looks surprisingly good and has a documentary-like look to it. The animals look striking too, you can see every little detail on some of them. And the actors portraying them do try to get their facial expressions across clearly, sometimes it works, others times they just say what they're feeling but you don't see it. If things like this are going to continue, it will need some more work, but this is a good start.
The score was composed by Hans Zimmer and most of his score just feels recycled from the previous film, and the songs as mentioned before are much the same but if you listen carefully you will hear one or two modern touches that have been put in. Once again this shows a disappointing lack of effort and what makes it even more disappointing is that this is the work of a highly-regarded composer, and here he has failed where he usually succeeds.
You would think all of the things mentioned above would have diminished my experience with this film but there was one flaw that trumped all the others, the film's lack of original ideas. Now I do understand what a remake is, it's been done before and some things must and usually do remain the same. But that doesn't mean that you can't bring some ideas of your own to it. I've seen it done well and I've seen it attempted and maybe it didn't get the outcome it hoped for. I recently saw a remake that did have some of its own ideas; it didn't entirely work out in its favour, but at least it tried. With remakes I suggest that some original ideas should maybe be tried instead of avoided, just so audiences don't get a film that's a longer version of something they have already seen.
The conclusions I draw from this are: The Lion King has poor voice performances; a mostly recycled script and the lack of effort is quite evident; with minimal new dialogue and a stretched-out runtime being the only notable changes; some visuals that are quite impressive but need work done to them; a a score that feels recycled and attempts to compensate for its laziness in a way that's maybe just as bad; and worst of all, lacking in original ideas.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give The Lion King...
D
Thank you for reading.
The plot is about a young lion whose destiny to be king is put in danger following a tragedy which leads to him being exiled, and years later as an adult he must find a way to take back his kingdom and his rightful place as king.
The performances are unfortunately quite poor, James Earl Jones brings proming charm and likeability to the role of Mufasa, despite playing the same character and saying almost exactly the same lines as over twenty years ago. Chitwel Ejifor tries (and fails) to bring any sense of personality beyond that of a conventional villain, and he's quite easy to ignore. Another notable performance is John Oliver as Zazu. He makes no particular effort to try and do his own take on the character, but instead spends most of the film trying way too hard to sound like the original voice actor. And it gets to the point where it becomes so obvious that's what he's doing that it just becomes distracting.
The film was written by Jeff Nathanson and what stood out to me most about the script was how everything stayed the same as the original, in a shot for shot manner. From famous scenes, to the dialogue, to the songs. All of them just about stay untouched. And the changes that are made to the film are so minimal, being only a few lines and some scenes being stretched out to meet the film's longer runtime. I just see it as a script with more copying put into to it than actual hard work and effort.
The film was shot by Caleb Deschanel, and this film does somewhat redeem itself with the visuals. Although there's no standout moment for the cinematography you can't deny that film's visuals are quite impressive - Pride Rock looks surprisingly good and has a documentary-like look to it. The animals look striking too, you can see every little detail on some of them. And the actors portraying them do try to get their facial expressions across clearly, sometimes it works, others times they just say what they're feeling but you don't see it. If things like this are going to continue, it will need some more work, but this is a good start.
The score was composed by Hans Zimmer and most of his score just feels recycled from the previous film, and the songs as mentioned before are much the same but if you listen carefully you will hear one or two modern touches that have been put in. Once again this shows a disappointing lack of effort and what makes it even more disappointing is that this is the work of a highly-regarded composer, and here he has failed where he usually succeeds.
You would think all of the things mentioned above would have diminished my experience with this film but there was one flaw that trumped all the others, the film's lack of original ideas. Now I do understand what a remake is, it's been done before and some things must and usually do remain the same. But that doesn't mean that you can't bring some ideas of your own to it. I've seen it done well and I've seen it attempted and maybe it didn't get the outcome it hoped for. I recently saw a remake that did have some of its own ideas; it didn't entirely work out in its favour, but at least it tried. With remakes I suggest that some original ideas should maybe be tried instead of avoided, just so audiences don't get a film that's a longer version of something they have already seen.
The conclusions I draw from this are: The Lion King has poor voice performances; a mostly recycled script and the lack of effort is quite evident; with minimal new dialogue and a stretched-out runtime being the only notable changes; some visuals that are quite impressive but need work done to them; a a score that feels recycled and attempts to compensate for its laziness in a way that's maybe just as bad; and worst of all, lacking in original ideas.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give The Lion King...
D
Thank you for reading.
Monday 15 July 2019
Stuber Review
Stuber was directed by Michael Dowse and stars Kumail Nanjiani, Dave Bautista, Iko Uwais, Natalie Morales, Betty Gilpin, Jimmy Tatro, Mira Sorvino and Karen Gillan.
The film is about a dedicated but relentless detective who enlists the help of an average Uber driver when he has the chance to bring down the criminal who killed his partner. But of course difficulties occur along the way, mostly stemming from how different the two men are, and they have to overcome those differences if they are to work together so that one can do his job while maintaining the reputation that he holds quite dear.
The performances are fine, but Nanjiani and Bautista effortlessly stand out. They do play the roles in a clichéd fashion but have an undeniable chemistry and Bautista especially shows commitment to his role, with often comedic presence and at times scene-stealing charisma. Nanjina does have moments too, but beyond the characters' chemistry it felt like he was really just there to give reactions of shock to anything that was happening around him. And also adapting to one situation after another which really was only funny with him once or twice.
The film was written by Tripper Clancy and on paper feels like a very generic buddy cop film, but the script keeps everything moving at a brisk pace, with often funny dialogue and over the top action sequences. And there is at times a feeling of self awareness, of the film knowing how silly it is and not taking itself too seriously. When things get even slightly dramatic, that feeling of comedic tone is still there. I thought of the script as an interesting way to do a film that feels conventional, but all the right steps seem to have been taken to keep it from slowing down and getting boring.
The film was shot by Bobby Shore and most of the shots are fine if unmemorable. But the one shot that somewhat manages to stand out is where a can flies directly into a man's head. I feel like the objective of the shot was either shock or disgust in a darkly comedic way... or maybe it's just as simple as doing something to get a reaction out of the audience. In the end if just a reaction is its goal, then it definitely succeeds.
The score was composed by Joseph Trapanese and while it's not very memorable the film tries to make up for that with a variety of popular songs. The standout moment for the music has to be during a gunfight when a rather relaxed song is being played over the obviously intense situation, along with some rather unusual visual choices to help go along with it. To have a song that is so clearly out of place for everything else that is happening in the scene, but yet somehow feels refreshing and enjoyable, just added more to my enjoyment of it.
The one thing that lessened my enjoyment of the film would be that from very early on we know why Bautista is going after this particular criminal. But even before the main events even start, we get a pre-titles sequence showing how all of that happened. It doesn't slow anything down, but certainly could have been told to the audience through dialogue instead of a five to ten minute infodump sequence. Instead the film could have used those minutes to achieve the potential that it doesn't quite fulfil.
The conclusions I draw from this are: Stuber has good performances especially from Bautista; a conventional script that's self-aware, funny and engaging, and rarely drags; one startling shot in the cinematography which I think was maybe put in just to get a reaction from the audience; a score that fails to stand out in any way, but uses a popular song in one scene to great comedic effect; and is only flawed by spending a few minutes focusing on something that could have been done in a much simpler way.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Stuber...
B-
Thank you for reading.
The film is about a dedicated but relentless detective who enlists the help of an average Uber driver when he has the chance to bring down the criminal who killed his partner. But of course difficulties occur along the way, mostly stemming from how different the two men are, and they have to overcome those differences if they are to work together so that one can do his job while maintaining the reputation that he holds quite dear.
The performances are fine, but Nanjiani and Bautista effortlessly stand out. They do play the roles in a clichéd fashion but have an undeniable chemistry and Bautista especially shows commitment to his role, with often comedic presence and at times scene-stealing charisma. Nanjina does have moments too, but beyond the characters' chemistry it felt like he was really just there to give reactions of shock to anything that was happening around him. And also adapting to one situation after another which really was only funny with him once or twice.
The film was written by Tripper Clancy and on paper feels like a very generic buddy cop film, but the script keeps everything moving at a brisk pace, with often funny dialogue and over the top action sequences. And there is at times a feeling of self awareness, of the film knowing how silly it is and not taking itself too seriously. When things get even slightly dramatic, that feeling of comedic tone is still there. I thought of the script as an interesting way to do a film that feels conventional, but all the right steps seem to have been taken to keep it from slowing down and getting boring.
The film was shot by Bobby Shore and most of the shots are fine if unmemorable. But the one shot that somewhat manages to stand out is where a can flies directly into a man's head. I feel like the objective of the shot was either shock or disgust in a darkly comedic way... or maybe it's just as simple as doing something to get a reaction out of the audience. In the end if just a reaction is its goal, then it definitely succeeds.
The score was composed by Joseph Trapanese and while it's not very memorable the film tries to make up for that with a variety of popular songs. The standout moment for the music has to be during a gunfight when a rather relaxed song is being played over the obviously intense situation, along with some rather unusual visual choices to help go along with it. To have a song that is so clearly out of place for everything else that is happening in the scene, but yet somehow feels refreshing and enjoyable, just added more to my enjoyment of it.
The one thing that lessened my enjoyment of the film would be that from very early on we know why Bautista is going after this particular criminal. But even before the main events even start, we get a pre-titles sequence showing how all of that happened. It doesn't slow anything down, but certainly could have been told to the audience through dialogue instead of a five to ten minute infodump sequence. Instead the film could have used those minutes to achieve the potential that it doesn't quite fulfil.
The conclusions I draw from this are: Stuber has good performances especially from Bautista; a conventional script that's self-aware, funny and engaging, and rarely drags; one startling shot in the cinematography which I think was maybe put in just to get a reaction from the audience; a score that fails to stand out in any way, but uses a popular song in one scene to great comedic effect; and is only flawed by spending a few minutes focusing on something that could have been done in a much simpler way.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Stuber...
B-
Thank you for reading.
Wednesday 3 July 2019
Yesterday Review
Yesterday was directed by Danny Boyle and stars Himesh Patel, Lilly James, Kate Mackinnon and Ed Sheeran.
The film is about a struggling musician who, after being in an accident, wakes up to discover no one remembers the music of the Beatles apart from him. So, understandably, he claims their songs as his own, takes the credit and gets all the recognition - while also achieving the level of fame he has always dreamed of. But could he run the risk of being exposed as a fraud? Or worse, losing the love of his life?
The performances were fine, Patel and James both do good jobs of portraying likeable everyday people, and they do have a believable chemistry together. But they are in the end forgettable. MacKinnon seems like the film's source of comic relief, and I thought she did a very good job with her character, she was funny and kept the film entertaining when things started to slow down, and through it was a small part she certainly made the most of it. Lastly Sheeran's work in the film didn't seem as much like a performance as a marketing ploy to get younger audiences in. And when he is on screen he just shows up, says a few lines that don't advance the plot, then goes away. And it's like that with Sheeran every few minutes for the whole runtime.
The film was written by Richard Curtis and it's clear that he has written it with the intention of it being a romantic comedy with a success story and a twist to give it some distinction from his previous work. There are some moments where that has slightly paid off, but despite its interesting concept and ambitions, it's very predictable after a while, there is nothing you don't see coming, and it just gets tiresome as you wait in vain for a truly interesting idea to reach its full potential.
The film was shot by Christopher Ross and there are some noteworthy moments, one being a surprising overuse of Dutch angles that felt out of place in a romantic comedy. Those kinds of angles are usually used in action movies to give the viewer a feeling of unease. I also thought it was somewhat interesting that while the main character is struggling to remember Beatles lyrics, we are shown an exact image of what it is he is saying. And on a slightly negative note, the blackout sequence which sets up the film's main events (Patel going slowly through the blackness) feel like nothing more than a recycled, and less impressive, version of a similar sequence from the 2017 horror film, Get Out. I doubt that it was anyone's intention to make the scenes similar, but when you look at the two, it's hard not to notice.
The music was composed by Daniel Pemberton, and unfortunately it didn't stand out to me at all. I was more concerned with what would happen with the Beatles songs. Firstly, Patel manages to sing the songs moderately well, but there's one very jarring alteration made to one of the songs that just comes off as desperation. It's as if someone had no idea what to do with all the rights to all of this music so they ended up doing the first thing they could think of, but without actually thinking it through.
The one flaw that really damaged my experience with this film, is that in the world where the film takes place, where the Beatles never existed, there are moments where it's mentioned in passing that several other familiar things don't exist either. I think this movie would have been far more interesting had this aspect been explored further, if there had been several things taken out of existence instead of just one. I certainly feel like that was the even better film trying to get out of this one.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Yesterday has average performances; an ambitious but predictable script; some interesting ideas in the cinematography, plus one shot that seems recycled from another film; an unmemorable score with unwarranted alterations made to beloved songs; and a flaw that if it had proper attention paid to it, perhaps could have been used productively to make a better film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Yesterday...
C
Thank you for reading.
The film is about a struggling musician who, after being in an accident, wakes up to discover no one remembers the music of the Beatles apart from him. So, understandably, he claims their songs as his own, takes the credit and gets all the recognition - while also achieving the level of fame he has always dreamed of. But could he run the risk of being exposed as a fraud? Or worse, losing the love of his life?
The performances were fine, Patel and James both do good jobs of portraying likeable everyday people, and they do have a believable chemistry together. But they are in the end forgettable. MacKinnon seems like the film's source of comic relief, and I thought she did a very good job with her character, she was funny and kept the film entertaining when things started to slow down, and through it was a small part she certainly made the most of it. Lastly Sheeran's work in the film didn't seem as much like a performance as a marketing ploy to get younger audiences in. And when he is on screen he just shows up, says a few lines that don't advance the plot, then goes away. And it's like that with Sheeran every few minutes for the whole runtime.
The film was written by Richard Curtis and it's clear that he has written it with the intention of it being a romantic comedy with a success story and a twist to give it some distinction from his previous work. There are some moments where that has slightly paid off, but despite its interesting concept and ambitions, it's very predictable after a while, there is nothing you don't see coming, and it just gets tiresome as you wait in vain for a truly interesting idea to reach its full potential.
The film was shot by Christopher Ross and there are some noteworthy moments, one being a surprising overuse of Dutch angles that felt out of place in a romantic comedy. Those kinds of angles are usually used in action movies to give the viewer a feeling of unease. I also thought it was somewhat interesting that while the main character is struggling to remember Beatles lyrics, we are shown an exact image of what it is he is saying. And on a slightly negative note, the blackout sequence which sets up the film's main events (Patel going slowly through the blackness) feel like nothing more than a recycled, and less impressive, version of a similar sequence from the 2017 horror film, Get Out. I doubt that it was anyone's intention to make the scenes similar, but when you look at the two, it's hard not to notice.
The music was composed by Daniel Pemberton, and unfortunately it didn't stand out to me at all. I was more concerned with what would happen with the Beatles songs. Firstly, Patel manages to sing the songs moderately well, but there's one very jarring alteration made to one of the songs that just comes off as desperation. It's as if someone had no idea what to do with all the rights to all of this music so they ended up doing the first thing they could think of, but without actually thinking it through.
The one flaw that really damaged my experience with this film, is that in the world where the film takes place, where the Beatles never existed, there are moments where it's mentioned in passing that several other familiar things don't exist either. I think this movie would have been far more interesting had this aspect been explored further, if there had been several things taken out of existence instead of just one. I certainly feel like that was the even better film trying to get out of this one.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Yesterday has average performances; an ambitious but predictable script; some interesting ideas in the cinematography, plus one shot that seems recycled from another film; an unmemorable score with unwarranted alterations made to beloved songs; and a flaw that if it had proper attention paid to it, perhaps could have been used productively to make a better film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Yesterday...
C
Thank you for reading.
Spider-Man:Far From Home Review
Spider-Man: Far From Home was directed by Jon Watts and stars Tom Holland, Samuel L Jackson, Zendaya, Cobie Smulders, Jon Favreau, Marisa Tomei and Jake Gyllenhaal.
The plot of this film revolves around Peter Parker and his friends as they take a trip around Europe, which is interrupted when Nick Fury shows up to request Parker's help with a new threat that has emerged. He teams up with a man named Mysterio, and on the side has to figure out how to fully take on his superhero duties, while also making time for his real life.
The performances have good but varying results. Tom Holland once again demonstrates how well he can play Peter Parker/Spider-Man by taking the awkward nerdy aspects of the character and using them to great comedic effect, and when he has to portray the character in a more serious light, he doesn't overplay it, or do it in a way that ruins the film's relatively light-hearted tone.
Zendaya as MJ was quite amusing, her scenes with Holland are definitely a highlight of the film and she proves herself to be a worthy addition to the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Mysterio with a lot of charisma, and he does have some genuine chemistry with Holland; and Samuel L Jackson plays Nick Fury with the signature likeability that he always brings to his roles.
The film was written by Chris McKenna and Eric Sommers, and while their script has been written with the same emphasis on high-school life and humour as the previous instalment, what stood out to me was how the script was able to take almost anything and find a way to make it entertaining - it could be a small situation someone has to get out, or a big battle scene, or even something as simple as teenage drama. All of this was very engaging, consistently enjoyable, and rarely felt like it dragged.
The film was shot by Matthew J Lloyd and he does have some noteworthy work in the film. There's a very hallucinogenic sequence which I found interesting to look at as it felt like an old idea was being tried in a different way in a superhero film. Some of the action and stunts are shot from some unusual, if tired, angles.
The score was composed by Michael Giacchino it appears to be some kind of tribute to the other Spider-Man scores. I felt he maybe achieved his aim once, and for the rest of the film the score thinks it's something it's not; and the music rarely shines because of that. The only other notable moment that is music-related is when Parker is in a bar and a song is playing in the background and the lyrics are (perhaps) alluding to something that has been said many times in the film. If it was intentional, well done. If not, then it was just a happy accident that worked in the music's favour.
There are actually several disappointments in this film for me, one being the villain's motivations - they just seem petty and although I could understand where he was coming from with them, when your motives are that bad, you're going to be hard to feel sympathy for. Next we have the villain's plan: this is a film that to some extent knows how silly it is, and has fun with that most of the time, but the villain's plan and how it gets carried out just eventually becomes over-complicated and too frustrating to follow. And lastly, the film gets far too overindulgent with the fact that many key characters die in a film set in the same cinematic universe as this one. Especially during the first 20 minutes when we just can't escape the face of one of the characters who died, it goes from being an interesting cross-reference to being annoyingly overindulgent.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Spider-Man: Far From Home has enjoyable performances, a consistently entertaining script, some interesting visuals and angles in the cinematography, and a score that achieves its aim then proceeds to be something it is not. It has a villain with petty motivations, a too-complicated plan, and overindulges in areas that are best left alone.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Spider-Man: Far From Home...
B-
Thank you for reading.
The plot of this film revolves around Peter Parker and his friends as they take a trip around Europe, which is interrupted when Nick Fury shows up to request Parker's help with a new threat that has emerged. He teams up with a man named Mysterio, and on the side has to figure out how to fully take on his superhero duties, while also making time for his real life.
The performances have good but varying results. Tom Holland once again demonstrates how well he can play Peter Parker/Spider-Man by taking the awkward nerdy aspects of the character and using them to great comedic effect, and when he has to portray the character in a more serious light, he doesn't overplay it, or do it in a way that ruins the film's relatively light-hearted tone.
Zendaya as MJ was quite amusing, her scenes with Holland are definitely a highlight of the film and she proves herself to be a worthy addition to the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Mysterio with a lot of charisma, and he does have some genuine chemistry with Holland; and Samuel L Jackson plays Nick Fury with the signature likeability that he always brings to his roles.
The film was written by Chris McKenna and Eric Sommers, and while their script has been written with the same emphasis on high-school life and humour as the previous instalment, what stood out to me was how the script was able to take almost anything and find a way to make it entertaining - it could be a small situation someone has to get out, or a big battle scene, or even something as simple as teenage drama. All of this was very engaging, consistently enjoyable, and rarely felt like it dragged.
The film was shot by Matthew J Lloyd and he does have some noteworthy work in the film. There's a very hallucinogenic sequence which I found interesting to look at as it felt like an old idea was being tried in a different way in a superhero film. Some of the action and stunts are shot from some unusual, if tired, angles.
The score was composed by Michael Giacchino it appears to be some kind of tribute to the other Spider-Man scores. I felt he maybe achieved his aim once, and for the rest of the film the score thinks it's something it's not; and the music rarely shines because of that. The only other notable moment that is music-related is when Parker is in a bar and a song is playing in the background and the lyrics are (perhaps) alluding to something that has been said many times in the film. If it was intentional, well done. If not, then it was just a happy accident that worked in the music's favour.
There are actually several disappointments in this film for me, one being the villain's motivations - they just seem petty and although I could understand where he was coming from with them, when your motives are that bad, you're going to be hard to feel sympathy for. Next we have the villain's plan: this is a film that to some extent knows how silly it is, and has fun with that most of the time, but the villain's plan and how it gets carried out just eventually becomes over-complicated and too frustrating to follow. And lastly, the film gets far too overindulgent with the fact that many key characters die in a film set in the same cinematic universe as this one. Especially during the first 20 minutes when we just can't escape the face of one of the characters who died, it goes from being an interesting cross-reference to being annoyingly overindulgent.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Spider-Man: Far From Home has enjoyable performances, a consistently entertaining script, some interesting visuals and angles in the cinematography, and a score that achieves its aim then proceeds to be something it is not. It has a villain with petty motivations, a too-complicated plan, and overindulges in areas that are best left alone.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Spider-Man: Far From Home...
B-
Thank you for reading.
Tuesday 25 June 2019
Child’s Play Review
Child's Play was directed by Lars Klevberg and stars Aubrey Plaza, Gabriel Bateman and Bryan Tyree Henry, and features Mark Hamill as the voice of Chucky.
The plot concerns a mother and son who move to a new home, and as a present the son comes into possession of a very high-tech doll. But the doll goes against its programming, becomes self-aware and goes on a murderous rampage.
The acting is surprisingly good, but for different reasons. Firstly you have Bateman who gives a committed and enjoyable, if clichéd, performance as Andy. Bryan Tyree Henry plays a police officer who provides the film's comic relief when it needs it. But in the end it all does come down to the doll, Mark Hamill as Chucky. He definitely succeeds in giving all his scenes a feeling of unease, which makes him very watchable and entertaining. But despite all that I felt there was something Hamill didn't do, something lacking that could have made his performance even more enjoyable. He's good, but there is definitely a feeling of opportunity missed.
The film was written by Tyler Burton Smith, and what is most impressive about his script is how it manages to elevate the quality of the film. The script is mostly new material and that generally works in its favour. There are new characters, who are given more to do, there's some very inventive kills throughout, and some memorable dialogue. Plus some dark humour and a fair amount of set up for some of the key characters before the main events start occurring. I thought all those things went together really well to make an above average script.
The film was shot by Brendan Ugeama and if there's one thing he has managed to accomplish with his cinematography it's the images of the doll standing in the shadows. I thought those work very well because they create quite an unnerving sensation in the viewer because he's simply standing there waiting, there's little to no light, and yet it's very clear what he is capable of and that he could suddenly jump and do anything at anytime.
The music was composed by Bear McCreary. I feel that the score works and doesn't work at the same time. There are parts of it that sound like it understands the film's darker tones rather well, but then another part will come along that demonstrates that maybe the darker tone aspect was understood a little too well, for a film that is a horror but does posses some silly ideas. And when the music tries to play to the sillier side of the film, especially with a song sung by the villain (!), I found that part of the score to be annoying and confusing. The song sounds as if it wants you to be frightened, but it sounds too much like an obnoxious nursery rhyme to even be remotely scary, just aggressively annoying The music is good work most of the time, I just feel that the film needed music of a slightly better standard to help to contrast the horrific and comedic tones.
One flaw that I feel diminished the film takes place in the final few minutes. Without getting into specifics or spoilers, something happens that I feel damages one of the original film's key values and for a film like this, it's also kind of unnecessary. This sequence did maintain my interest in the film, but it wasn't without its problems. I would best describe it as an entertaining, but overblown climax.
The conclusions I draw from that is are that: Child's Play has surprisingly good performances; a very well written script; some unnerving shots; a score that has its moments but needs work with the tonal elements; an aggressively annoying song for and sung by the villain; and a flaw that I feel damages one of the original's core values, but does give us an entertaining but overblown climax.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Child's Play...
B
Thank you for reading.
The plot concerns a mother and son who move to a new home, and as a present the son comes into possession of a very high-tech doll. But the doll goes against its programming, becomes self-aware and goes on a murderous rampage.
The acting is surprisingly good, but for different reasons. Firstly you have Bateman who gives a committed and enjoyable, if clichéd, performance as Andy. Bryan Tyree Henry plays a police officer who provides the film's comic relief when it needs it. But in the end it all does come down to the doll, Mark Hamill as Chucky. He definitely succeeds in giving all his scenes a feeling of unease, which makes him very watchable and entertaining. But despite all that I felt there was something Hamill didn't do, something lacking that could have made his performance even more enjoyable. He's good, but there is definitely a feeling of opportunity missed.
The film was written by Tyler Burton Smith, and what is most impressive about his script is how it manages to elevate the quality of the film. The script is mostly new material and that generally works in its favour. There are new characters, who are given more to do, there's some very inventive kills throughout, and some memorable dialogue. Plus some dark humour and a fair amount of set up for some of the key characters before the main events start occurring. I thought all those things went together really well to make an above average script.
The film was shot by Brendan Ugeama and if there's one thing he has managed to accomplish with his cinematography it's the images of the doll standing in the shadows. I thought those work very well because they create quite an unnerving sensation in the viewer because he's simply standing there waiting, there's little to no light, and yet it's very clear what he is capable of and that he could suddenly jump and do anything at anytime.
The music was composed by Bear McCreary. I feel that the score works and doesn't work at the same time. There are parts of it that sound like it understands the film's darker tones rather well, but then another part will come along that demonstrates that maybe the darker tone aspect was understood a little too well, for a film that is a horror but does posses some silly ideas. And when the music tries to play to the sillier side of the film, especially with a song sung by the villain (!), I found that part of the score to be annoying and confusing. The song sounds as if it wants you to be frightened, but it sounds too much like an obnoxious nursery rhyme to even be remotely scary, just aggressively annoying The music is good work most of the time, I just feel that the film needed music of a slightly better standard to help to contrast the horrific and comedic tones.
One flaw that I feel diminished the film takes place in the final few minutes. Without getting into specifics or spoilers, something happens that I feel damages one of the original film's key values and for a film like this, it's also kind of unnecessary. This sequence did maintain my interest in the film, but it wasn't without its problems. I would best describe it as an entertaining, but overblown climax.
The conclusions I draw from that is are that: Child's Play has surprisingly good performances; a very well written script; some unnerving shots; a score that has its moments but needs work with the tonal elements; an aggressively annoying song for and sung by the villain; and a flaw that I feel damages one of the original's core values, but does give us an entertaining but overblown climax.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Child's Play...
B
Thank you for reading.
Saturday 22 June 2019
Toy Story 4 Review
Toy Story 4 was directed by Josh Cooley and features the voices of Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts, Keegan-Michael Key, Jordan Peele, Tony Hale and Keanu Reeves, plus many others.
The plot concerns the toys' life with their new owner, Bonnie, who makes a toy fork who comes to life and decides that the conventional toy life is not for him. So Woody and the rest of the toys go to find him, and encounter some friends both old and new along the way.
For performances I thought most of the actors worked best with scenes that were best suited to their abilities. As always, Tom Hanks as Woody creates a very good screen presence, especially when the film needs to be dramatic or heart-warming, but he does also try to have some light-hearted fun when given the chance. Annie Potts as Bo is given more screen time than she has had in any of the previous instalments and does her best with the material she has. Her efforts are appreciated, but come off as only mildly engaging as she is surround by unquestionably superior talent. From the new cast Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele definitely stand out. They have great chemistry together and enjoy some funny lines and moments. And it's refreshing to have new characters who are so enjoyable to watch.
The script is by Stephany Folsom and Andrew Stanton, and is certainly impressive to say the least. There's the usual likeable brand of humour that these film are known for, but this one feels slightly different due to its emphasis on emotion. And to its credit, the film feels very fast-paced and rarely drags, and when it does occasionally slow the pace, it picks up relatively quickly. Another first is that I feel for the first time in this franchise we get a few characters that are fleshed out well and not just given basic details. Plus the ending is unexpected but still a surprisingly appropriate way to bring the film to an end.
The cinematography is by Patrick Lin and Jean-Claude Kalache and unfortunately nothing about the film's visuals stand out for me, but then again when it comes to films like this I feel it's the animation that does the talking for the visual aspects. Speaking of which, the animation is stepped up in a big way from the last film in the franchise, and it's definitely noticeable, especially in the way certain rooms are lit - from flashy and upbeat to dark and depressing.
The score was composed by Randy Newman, and his work here sounds decent enough, but resembles too much what he brought to these films before. The music goes well with the scenes it accompanies, but I feel that sometimes Newman tries a little too hard to make the viewer emotional; sometimes it can just start to work, at other times it doesn't and you just ignore it for a few minutes. I would have to call it decent enough but a bit recycled and emotionally manipulative.
The one flaw that I feel this film has is that, while all the previous instalments had original plots and ideas for their stories, this one has a similar plot to the second one. If it was possible for the writers to come up with an original plot all those years ago, then why couldn't the same have been done here? This is something of a step down for the franchise, so let's hope any future films made by this studio don't make the same mistake.
The conclusions I draw from this are: that Toy Story 4 has good voice performances; an impressive script; unremarkable cinematography that is somewhat made up for by good animation; a decent if manipulative score; and a minus point for being driven by a recycled plot.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Toy Story 4...
B+
Thank you for reading.
The plot concerns the toys' life with their new owner, Bonnie, who makes a toy fork who comes to life and decides that the conventional toy life is not for him. So Woody and the rest of the toys go to find him, and encounter some friends both old and new along the way.
For performances I thought most of the actors worked best with scenes that were best suited to their abilities. As always, Tom Hanks as Woody creates a very good screen presence, especially when the film needs to be dramatic or heart-warming, but he does also try to have some light-hearted fun when given the chance. Annie Potts as Bo is given more screen time than she has had in any of the previous instalments and does her best with the material she has. Her efforts are appreciated, but come off as only mildly engaging as she is surround by unquestionably superior talent. From the new cast Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele definitely stand out. They have great chemistry together and enjoy some funny lines and moments. And it's refreshing to have new characters who are so enjoyable to watch.
The script is by Stephany Folsom and Andrew Stanton, and is certainly impressive to say the least. There's the usual likeable brand of humour that these film are known for, but this one feels slightly different due to its emphasis on emotion. And to its credit, the film feels very fast-paced and rarely drags, and when it does occasionally slow the pace, it picks up relatively quickly. Another first is that I feel for the first time in this franchise we get a few characters that are fleshed out well and not just given basic details. Plus the ending is unexpected but still a surprisingly appropriate way to bring the film to an end.
The cinematography is by Patrick Lin and Jean-Claude Kalache and unfortunately nothing about the film's visuals stand out for me, but then again when it comes to films like this I feel it's the animation that does the talking for the visual aspects. Speaking of which, the animation is stepped up in a big way from the last film in the franchise, and it's definitely noticeable, especially in the way certain rooms are lit - from flashy and upbeat to dark and depressing.
The score was composed by Randy Newman, and his work here sounds decent enough, but resembles too much what he brought to these films before. The music goes well with the scenes it accompanies, but I feel that sometimes Newman tries a little too hard to make the viewer emotional; sometimes it can just start to work, at other times it doesn't and you just ignore it for a few minutes. I would have to call it decent enough but a bit recycled and emotionally manipulative.
The one flaw that I feel this film has is that, while all the previous instalments had original plots and ideas for their stories, this one has a similar plot to the second one. If it was possible for the writers to come up with an original plot all those years ago, then why couldn't the same have been done here? This is something of a step down for the franchise, so let's hope any future films made by this studio don't make the same mistake.
The conclusions I draw from this are: that Toy Story 4 has good voice performances; an impressive script; unremarkable cinematography that is somewhat made up for by good animation; a decent if manipulative score; and a minus point for being driven by a recycled plot.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Toy Story 4...
B+
Thank you for reading.
Thursday 20 June 2019
Brightburn Review
Brightburn was directed by David Yaroveskey and stars Elizabeth Banks, David Denman, Matt Jones, Meredith Hagner, Gregory Alan Williams, Becky Wahlstorm and Jackson A. Dunn.
The plot concerns a couple who have spent years raising an alien child, who looks exactly like any other human being, as their own. But they then have to deal with the consequences of their actions when in adolescence, the boy starts to develop powers that he uses to cause mass destruction around his hometown.
For performances, Elizabeth Banks does moderately well throughout, including the film's climax where she has to portray genuine fear and desperation at a believable but not over-the-top level, and I thought she did that quite well. And in the matter of Dunn as the titular antagonist he was especially good at portraying the cold, psychopathic and inhuman side of his character. And he remained credible throughout the film.
The film was written by Brian and Mark Gunn. What impressed me most about the script was how well the horrific scenes and the more character- and plot-driven scenes were balanced out. It demonstrated to me that the film could have its ambitions without having to sacrifice things that are arguably more important. Speaking of the film's more horrific moments, they are handled quite well, most of them being built up with just the right amount of tension, and when it pays off it feels worth it.
The film was shot by Michael Dallatorre and I feel that he has done a fine job, in fact it's in this particular area that I feel the film maybe got carried away with its lack of restrictions. There are a few shots of extreme graphic violence that I felt was the film's way of saying oh, look what we can do, isn't this terrifying. I found it unsettling for about a second, but when the shot chose to linger on some of these disturbing images, it just felt like an unnecessary way of provoking the audience.
The score was composed by Timothy Williams, and what I found with his score is that much like another film I reviewed recently, due to all the things going on around it, the score became difficult to appreciate. The only time it manged to grab my attention was when it got inescapably loud and employed the use of musical stings; which to me just feels like a cheap way to get the viewer to jump out of their seat.
The most significant flaw I feel the film has is in its climax. To its credit, it did manage to keep me invested in what was happening, but it did so with methods that had already been used in the film several times already. Therefore any shock value was gone and the audience was by the end immune to any jump-scares the film can produce. I will also give it credit for making some bold choices in the final few minutes.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Brightburn has two good performances, especially from a newcomer; a script that balances horror, character, and plot without sacrificing anything; some shots in the cinematography that go from unsettling to uninteresting; and a score that is effectively drowned out by everything happening around it and resorts to cheap tactics just to get some attention. And there is a flawed, but bold, climax.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Brightburn…
C
Thank you for reading.
The plot concerns a couple who have spent years raising an alien child, who looks exactly like any other human being, as their own. But they then have to deal with the consequences of their actions when in adolescence, the boy starts to develop powers that he uses to cause mass destruction around his hometown.
For performances, Elizabeth Banks does moderately well throughout, including the film's climax where she has to portray genuine fear and desperation at a believable but not over-the-top level, and I thought she did that quite well. And in the matter of Dunn as the titular antagonist he was especially good at portraying the cold, psychopathic and inhuman side of his character. And he remained credible throughout the film.
The film was written by Brian and Mark Gunn. What impressed me most about the script was how well the horrific scenes and the more character- and plot-driven scenes were balanced out. It demonstrated to me that the film could have its ambitions without having to sacrifice things that are arguably more important. Speaking of the film's more horrific moments, they are handled quite well, most of them being built up with just the right amount of tension, and when it pays off it feels worth it.
The film was shot by Michael Dallatorre and I feel that he has done a fine job, in fact it's in this particular area that I feel the film maybe got carried away with its lack of restrictions. There are a few shots of extreme graphic violence that I felt was the film's way of saying oh, look what we can do, isn't this terrifying. I found it unsettling for about a second, but when the shot chose to linger on some of these disturbing images, it just felt like an unnecessary way of provoking the audience.
The score was composed by Timothy Williams, and what I found with his score is that much like another film I reviewed recently, due to all the things going on around it, the score became difficult to appreciate. The only time it manged to grab my attention was when it got inescapably loud and employed the use of musical stings; which to me just feels like a cheap way to get the viewer to jump out of their seat.
The most significant flaw I feel the film has is in its climax. To its credit, it did manage to keep me invested in what was happening, but it did so with methods that had already been used in the film several times already. Therefore any shock value was gone and the audience was by the end immune to any jump-scares the film can produce. I will also give it credit for making some bold choices in the final few minutes.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Brightburn has two good performances, especially from a newcomer; a script that balances horror, character, and plot without sacrificing anything; some shots in the cinematography that go from unsettling to uninteresting; and a score that is effectively drowned out by everything happening around it and resorts to cheap tactics just to get some attention. And there is a flawed, but bold, climax.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Brightburn…
C
Thank you for reading.
Saturday 15 June 2019
Men In Black: International Review
Men In Black: International was directed by F Gary Gray, and stars Chris Hemsworth, Tessa Thomson, Rebecca Ferguson, Kumail Nanjiani, Rafe Spall, Laurent and Larry Bourgeois, Emma Thompson and Liam Neeson.
The plot concerns an ordinary woman whose lifelong belief in the Men In Black leads her to their headquarters where she is recruited and sent to a UK-based branch of the organisation. There, she is assigned a partner and the two are sent across the globe to investigate the threat of shape-shifting aliens.
The performances are unfortunately very forgettable. Thomson and Hemsworth try to recreate the same chemistry that the original actors had, but their interactions feel so forced and unnatural that they are anything but believable. When Neeson gets a chance to be in the film longer then a few seconds every so often, it feels like nothing more than a way to compensate for the time and opportunities in the film he has missed.
The film was written by Art Marcum and Matt Holloway. The best word I can think of that describes the script is convoluted. It features at least one scene that feels recycled from the first film, it
seems more interested in exploring other countries than forwarding its plot for most of the runtime, and worst of all the whole film is executed without the strangeness or flair that made the original three films so enjoyable.
The film was shot by Stuart Dryburgh and the most of his work is bland. There is not a single memorable visual in this film, and if you were desperate to find even one shot you could call memorable you would be left with the character's faces being shot from a slightly unconventional angle.
The music was composed by Danny Elfman and Chris Bacon, and their score is probably the only thing that manages to save this film. The original theme is brought back with some techno-music added to it for modern touches, which was an interesting (if unnecessary) idea and like the previous instalments different variations of this theme play through several scenes. This is one of several things that I think will keep the long-time fans of this franchise interested.
While it sounds as if many aspects of the film left me disappointed, one shortcoming in particular was the worst: the incredibly weak main villains. I didn't care about them or why they were doing what they were doing, they lacked good screen presence and weren't remotely frightening. And when it came time to try and care about what they were doing, I was so fed up with them that I just didn't care at all.
The conclusions I draw from this are: Men In Black: International has forgettable performances; a convoluted script more interested in dealing with the less important aspects than with what actually matters; bland cinematography; a score that someone felt needed to be improved with modern techno-music, but really didn't; and villains who felt very weak in comparison to some of the others in this series of films.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Men In Black International...
D
Thank you for reading.
The plot concerns an ordinary woman whose lifelong belief in the Men In Black leads her to their headquarters where she is recruited and sent to a UK-based branch of the organisation. There, she is assigned a partner and the two are sent across the globe to investigate the threat of shape-shifting aliens.
The performances are unfortunately very forgettable. Thomson and Hemsworth try to recreate the same chemistry that the original actors had, but their interactions feel so forced and unnatural that they are anything but believable. When Neeson gets a chance to be in the film longer then a few seconds every so often, it feels like nothing more than a way to compensate for the time and opportunities in the film he has missed.
The film was written by Art Marcum and Matt Holloway. The best word I can think of that describes the script is convoluted. It features at least one scene that feels recycled from the first film, it
seems more interested in exploring other countries than forwarding its plot for most of the runtime, and worst of all the whole film is executed without the strangeness or flair that made the original three films so enjoyable.
The film was shot by Stuart Dryburgh and the most of his work is bland. There is not a single memorable visual in this film, and if you were desperate to find even one shot you could call memorable you would be left with the character's faces being shot from a slightly unconventional angle.
The music was composed by Danny Elfman and Chris Bacon, and their score is probably the only thing that manages to save this film. The original theme is brought back with some techno-music added to it for modern touches, which was an interesting (if unnecessary) idea and like the previous instalments different variations of this theme play through several scenes. This is one of several things that I think will keep the long-time fans of this franchise interested.
While it sounds as if many aspects of the film left me disappointed, one shortcoming in particular was the worst: the incredibly weak main villains. I didn't care about them or why they were doing what they were doing, they lacked good screen presence and weren't remotely frightening. And when it came time to try and care about what they were doing, I was so fed up with them that I just didn't care at all.
The conclusions I draw from this are: Men In Black: International has forgettable performances; a convoluted script more interested in dealing with the less important aspects than with what actually matters; bland cinematography; a score that someone felt needed to be improved with modern techno-music, but really didn't; and villains who felt very weak in comparison to some of the others in this series of films.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Men In Black International...
D
Thank you for reading.
Saturday 8 June 2019
X -Men:Dark Phoenix Review
X-Men: Dark Phoenix is directed by Simon Kinberg and stars James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicolas Hoult, Sophie Turner, Tye Sheridan, Alexandra Shipp and Jessica Chastain.
The plot of this film revolves around Jean Grey who, during a mission in space with her fellow X-Men, suffers a terrible accident that takes her powers to a very unstable level and she turns to wreaking havoc on the Earth.
The performances are all mixed, James McAvoy as Charles/Professor X shows that he can be very likeable and charming, but also very serious and intense when he needs to be. Then there is Sophie Turner as Jean Grey/The Phoenix who is good at portraying the distress, fear and confusion she is going through - she is very convincing in the role. And then there is Fassbender as Magneto, who has done better work with the role in the past, but his presence here is an admirable effort and something to be appreciative of. Everyone else just feels like pale imitations of the actors who portrayed them in the previous instalments.
The script was written by the director and some mildly intense opening scenes do show some potential, but as soon as the titular villain makes her appearance a lot of the film ends up becoming very repetitive. Although the film could have some interesting ideas it just doesn't explore the possibilities. I found this script both unduly repetitive and lacking in ambition.
The film was shot by Mauro Fiore and there's very little of note - the film mostly just looks painfully average. There is a little bit of glossiness to scenes that take place in the past, but apart from that the visual side of this film is quite a let-down with only one small redeeming quality.
The music was composed by Hans Zimmer and his score certainly gives the film the darker tone that it's looking for, but nevertheless the music seems as if not much work went into it. What I find even worse is that if you listen carefully, you will hear several echoes of his earlier work. It sounds like he was only half-interested in this work and compensated with what he thought he could get away with.
I would like to mention some of the visual effects. I was somewhat impressed with a key sequence that manged to be bright, colourful, and still possess a mild intensity. And the film did have some use of slow motion which I think is fine, but if used too much is nothing more than a cheap way to keep the audience's attention.
Now I now what you're thinking, what could have damaged my experience with this film any more than the above? One thing did - the ending is a joke!. First we have a climactic fight scene that goes on too long and is hard to get invested in. Then we have one or two call-backs to previous films in the franchise, and the worst part of this is that the ending feels like it is open to a sequel that is never going to happen. This ending really annoyed me, I expected better from a film that was supposed to be a great send-off for the franchise, but instead we got this.
The conclusions I draw from this are: X-Men: Dark Phoenix has some good performances; a ambitious but over-repetitive script; very little to be impressed with in cinematography; a score that gets the tone of the film right, but after that gives in to trying as little as possible; some mildly impressive things to be found in the visual effects; and an ending that is the perfect example of the wrong way to end a beloved film franchise.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give X-Men: Dark Phoenix...
C-
Thank you for reading.
The plot of this film revolves around Jean Grey who, during a mission in space with her fellow X-Men, suffers a terrible accident that takes her powers to a very unstable level and she turns to wreaking havoc on the Earth.
The performances are all mixed, James McAvoy as Charles/Professor X shows that he can be very likeable and charming, but also very serious and intense when he needs to be. Then there is Sophie Turner as Jean Grey/The Phoenix who is good at portraying the distress, fear and confusion she is going through - she is very convincing in the role. And then there is Fassbender as Magneto, who has done better work with the role in the past, but his presence here is an admirable effort and something to be appreciative of. Everyone else just feels like pale imitations of the actors who portrayed them in the previous instalments.
The script was written by the director and some mildly intense opening scenes do show some potential, but as soon as the titular villain makes her appearance a lot of the film ends up becoming very repetitive. Although the film could have some interesting ideas it just doesn't explore the possibilities. I found this script both unduly repetitive and lacking in ambition.
The film was shot by Mauro Fiore and there's very little of note - the film mostly just looks painfully average. There is a little bit of glossiness to scenes that take place in the past, but apart from that the visual side of this film is quite a let-down with only one small redeeming quality.
The music was composed by Hans Zimmer and his score certainly gives the film the darker tone that it's looking for, but nevertheless the music seems as if not much work went into it. What I find even worse is that if you listen carefully, you will hear several echoes of his earlier work. It sounds like he was only half-interested in this work and compensated with what he thought he could get away with.
I would like to mention some of the visual effects. I was somewhat impressed with a key sequence that manged to be bright, colourful, and still possess a mild intensity. And the film did have some use of slow motion which I think is fine, but if used too much is nothing more than a cheap way to keep the audience's attention.
Now I now what you're thinking, what could have damaged my experience with this film any more than the above? One thing did - the ending is a joke!. First we have a climactic fight scene that goes on too long and is hard to get invested in. Then we have one or two call-backs to previous films in the franchise, and the worst part of this is that the ending feels like it is open to a sequel that is never going to happen. This ending really annoyed me, I expected better from a film that was supposed to be a great send-off for the franchise, but instead we got this.
The conclusions I draw from this are: X-Men: Dark Phoenix has some good performances; a ambitious but over-repetitive script; very little to be impressed with in cinematography; a score that gets the tone of the film right, but after that gives in to trying as little as possible; some mildly impressive things to be found in the visual effects; and an ending that is the perfect example of the wrong way to end a beloved film franchise.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give X-Men: Dark Phoenix...
C-
Thank you for reading.
Tuesday 4 June 2019
Rocketman Review
Rocketman was directed by Dexter Fletcher and stars Taron Egerton, Jamie Bell, Richard Madden and Bryce Dallas Howard.
The film is, of course, about the life of Elton John, starting with his early years as a prodigy at the Royal Academy of Music to going on to have one of the biggest careers in the music industry. But it also deals with his personal life, some of his relationships with people, and the some of the struggles he faced during his life.
This film is full of good performances, but the standout has to be Taron Egerton as Elton John. I feel as if he found a good distinction between both sides of his character, he had to play the flamboyant singer and also the man with a rather serious and quite dramatic personal life. I thought he did both very well. I would also like to mention the performance of Bryce Dallas Howard as Sheila Eileen, Elton's mother. She had a very convincing English accent and played her part well, even if it was a bit clichéd.
The film was written by Lee Hall and what he has done here is to establish a balance between the traditions of the music biopic genre and the film's own ambitions that range from fantasy sequences with very dreamlike visuals, to high energy musical numbers. What impressed me most about the way this film was written was the balance of those two things and when the film chose to indulge in one of its more out-there aspects, it rarely got tiring, it just kept my interest due to how refreshing and unique it all was.
The film was shot by George Richmond and there are quite a few noteworthy shots, but the outstanding shots for me were when Elton levitates when playing the piano, and when (as a boy) he is conducting a choir in his room. These were impressive to me because they demonstrated how far the director was willing to push the musical fantasy ideas. And as members of the audience we are just left sitting there witnessing something that has never really been used in this genre before, and yet somehow it works.
Apart from many Elton John songs. the incidental music was composed by Matthew Margeson and in the way of an original score not much is noticeable. A great deal of energy has been brought to the musical numbers and they never drag on for too long. Also, they always have something that will keep the attention of those who are fans of musicals and those who are not. I must mention the singing - Egerton sang all of Elton's songs himself and personally I thought he did a good job. I would like to mention that fact that even if you are not an Elton John fan, you can still appreciate the skill that went into the songs for the movie.
The one misgiving I had was this film's treatment of John Reid, Elton's manager. Firstly I want to make it clear that I enjoyed Richard Madden's performance but was unhappy with his portrayal as an out-and-out villain here, especially we recently saw the same character in Bohemian Rhapsody (played by a different actor) in which he was shown much more positively. I have concluded that it must be that the two clients had very different experiences of him, leading to what may be a historical inaccuracy.
The conclusions I draw from this are that Rocketman has good performances, especially from its lead; a script that finds a good balance between genre conventions and ambition; some interesting shots with cinematography that further those ambitions; and in music, some high-energy musical numbers and some well-sung covers of popular songs. And one puzzling inconsistency in the portrayal of key character compared with how appears in another vert recent film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Rocketman…
B-
Thank you for reading.
The film is, of course, about the life of Elton John, starting with his early years as a prodigy at the Royal Academy of Music to going on to have one of the biggest careers in the music industry. But it also deals with his personal life, some of his relationships with people, and the some of the struggles he faced during his life.
This film is full of good performances, but the standout has to be Taron Egerton as Elton John. I feel as if he found a good distinction between both sides of his character, he had to play the flamboyant singer and also the man with a rather serious and quite dramatic personal life. I thought he did both very well. I would also like to mention the performance of Bryce Dallas Howard as Sheila Eileen, Elton's mother. She had a very convincing English accent and played her part well, even if it was a bit clichéd.
The film was written by Lee Hall and what he has done here is to establish a balance between the traditions of the music biopic genre and the film's own ambitions that range from fantasy sequences with very dreamlike visuals, to high energy musical numbers. What impressed me most about the way this film was written was the balance of those two things and when the film chose to indulge in one of its more out-there aspects, it rarely got tiring, it just kept my interest due to how refreshing and unique it all was.
The film was shot by George Richmond and there are quite a few noteworthy shots, but the outstanding shots for me were when Elton levitates when playing the piano, and when (as a boy) he is conducting a choir in his room. These were impressive to me because they demonstrated how far the director was willing to push the musical fantasy ideas. And as members of the audience we are just left sitting there witnessing something that has never really been used in this genre before, and yet somehow it works.
Apart from many Elton John songs. the incidental music was composed by Matthew Margeson and in the way of an original score not much is noticeable. A great deal of energy has been brought to the musical numbers and they never drag on for too long. Also, they always have something that will keep the attention of those who are fans of musicals and those who are not. I must mention the singing - Egerton sang all of Elton's songs himself and personally I thought he did a good job. I would like to mention that fact that even if you are not an Elton John fan, you can still appreciate the skill that went into the songs for the movie.
The one misgiving I had was this film's treatment of John Reid, Elton's manager. Firstly I want to make it clear that I enjoyed Richard Madden's performance but was unhappy with his portrayal as an out-and-out villain here, especially we recently saw the same character in Bohemian Rhapsody (played by a different actor) in which he was shown much more positively. I have concluded that it must be that the two clients had very different experiences of him, leading to what may be a historical inaccuracy.
The conclusions I draw from this are that Rocketman has good performances, especially from its lead; a script that finds a good balance between genre conventions and ambition; some interesting shots with cinematography that further those ambitions; and in music, some high-energy musical numbers and some well-sung covers of popular songs. And one puzzling inconsistency in the portrayal of key character compared with how appears in another vert recent film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Rocketman…
B-
Thank you for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)