Godzilla: King of the Monsters was directed by Michael Dougherty and stars Kyle Chandler, Vera Farmiga, Bradley Whitford, Charles Dance, David Strathairn, Ken Watanabe and Millie Bobby Brown along with a few others as well.
The plot sees Godzilla face off against a group of monsters while military personnel and scientists fight to ensure their own survival.
This film unfortunately features no standout performances. There are a few moments through the film where people such as Farmiga, Brown, and Watanabe have to get very dramatic in their roles and they were definitely convincing when such moments came, which was only thing about the performances that stuck out to me. The rest of the time everyone else just seems to play their characters at a standard that can only be called barely credible.
The film was written by Michael Dougherty and Zach Shields. The script has a lot of things that it wants to do, from continuing the story from the first Godzilla film to giving us a story with new characters, family drama and debates on right and wrong. And not forgetting very intense battle scenes with monsters. The one thing that impressed me about the script was how perfectly-paced the battle scenes with Godzilla and the monsters are. They were kept at such a perfect pace that none of them dragged at all.
The film was shot by Lawrence Sher, who did an average job; the standout shots are the ones of Godzilla's underwater home, as they are so different visually from anything else in the film. I will also say that a shot of one of the monsters making its first appearance is also somewhat impressive, but it does feel it a bit manipulative when you see something like that and your first response is a feeling of awe that feels forced.
The music was composed by Bear McCreary and to be honest this film is so full of bombastic explosions and high-octane action that's its almost impossible to even to appreciate the score. Luckily it does have a standout moment when a character is walking toward certain death. The choice of music was perfect, it establishes the weight of what is happening on screen and it's all executed almost perfectly.
I would also like to mention the visual effects. I thought some were impressive, but after a while the film gets a bit overindulgent with them.
The one thing that severely damaged my experience with the movie was this. Much like the first film, the characters are not that interesting. I find this surprising since the main criticism of the first film was listened to - Godzilla's presence is improved here but the characters are just as badly underdeveloped as they were in the first film. It just seems to be all centred around Godzilla once he shows up, and very little time is made to develop the characters, both old and new.
The conclusions I draw from this are, Godzilla: King of the Monsters has no standout performances, but moments of promise from its cast; a script with a lot to do but that accomplishes very little of its ideas successfully; cinematography that's impressive if a bit manipulative; and a score that's hard to notice due to everything else going on around it, but that compensates with one perfect moment. And one flaw - the lack of interesting characters that has been carried on from the last Godzilla; I'm not sure why you would fix one flaw but not the other (and it's a rather easy one to fix) it's all a bit confusing.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Godzilla: King of the monsters...
C-
Thank you for reading.
Wednesday 29 May 2019
Tuesday 28 May 2019
Aladdin Review
Aladdin is directed by Guy Ritchie and stars Mena Massoud, Naomi Scott, Marwan Kenzari, Navid Negabahan, Nashim Pedrad, Billy Magnussen and of course Will Smith as the Genie.
The film revolves around the titular character who falls in love with a princess and wants to impress her, and is given the chance to do so when a man named Jafar asks him to go into a cave to find and bring him a lamp... which has the power to grant him three wishes.
The performances are quite mixed, some leave no impression at all while others leave you mildly impressed. The standout performance for me would have to be Marwan Kenzari as Jafar. I found him to be intense, very engaging and interesting to watch, and above all he was believable in the role.
I will briefly mention Will Smith as the genie, The controversy his casting caused was completely unjustified. It's just another Will Smith performance where he spends the entire film going around with his one-note sense of humour. The only difference is sometimes we see him in blue CGI, an average effect, or we see him in human form. That's all I will say on the matter.
The film was written by John August and Guy Ritchie. I can say that they have definitely succeeded in transplanting key characters and well-known songs from the previous film version to this new adaptation. The thing that struck me most about the script was its emphasis on comedy, and in case you are wondering, the film does contain some of Guy Ritchie's usual movie tropes. An example of this is things being explained out loud as they are also being shown onscreen.
The film was shot by Alan Stewart and it is my regret to say that nothing stands out about the cinematography, at best all you get is a few shots of a vast desert and some exteriors of the main city, both of which I would concede are impressive.
The score was composed by Alan Menken who also composed the score for the previous film. Here he has come up with a score that seems no more than passable, as if his mind and efforts were more focused on the songs. Getting onto the songs now, I feel somewhat conflicted about them as each one got a very different response from me than the last. With one of them I thought they were trying too hard, another not hard enough. And then just done well enough for me to take notice. In the end I would have to call the music in this film middling.
Here is the one flaw I have with the film, it's just too long. With a runtime of 128 minutes, instead of telling the audience a familiar story with something new occasionally thrown in, the film chooses to drag out as many scenes as it can for as long as it can. It even felt like a whole hour had passed before we even got to the main plot of the film. Maybe they could have got away with this first time around but surely not in a remake of a story this well known. I find this to be a disappointment and hope lessons are learned if these remakes are to continue.
The conclusions I draw from this are, Aladdin has one standout performance, a script that respects the original source material and has ideas of its own that it wishes to pursue. Some impressive shots to be found in the cinematography, and a middling score featuring songs that will depend on how you feel at the end of each one. And of the course the film suffers horribly from being overlong and having scenes that are dragged out as far as they can go.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Aladdin...
C-
Thank you for reading.
The film revolves around the titular character who falls in love with a princess and wants to impress her, and is given the chance to do so when a man named Jafar asks him to go into a cave to find and bring him a lamp... which has the power to grant him three wishes.
The performances are quite mixed, some leave no impression at all while others leave you mildly impressed. The standout performance for me would have to be Marwan Kenzari as Jafar. I found him to be intense, very engaging and interesting to watch, and above all he was believable in the role.
I will briefly mention Will Smith as the genie, The controversy his casting caused was completely unjustified. It's just another Will Smith performance where he spends the entire film going around with his one-note sense of humour. The only difference is sometimes we see him in blue CGI, an average effect, or we see him in human form. That's all I will say on the matter.
The film was written by John August and Guy Ritchie. I can say that they have definitely succeeded in transplanting key characters and well-known songs from the previous film version to this new adaptation. The thing that struck me most about the script was its emphasis on comedy, and in case you are wondering, the film does contain some of Guy Ritchie's usual movie tropes. An example of this is things being explained out loud as they are also being shown onscreen.
The film was shot by Alan Stewart and it is my regret to say that nothing stands out about the cinematography, at best all you get is a few shots of a vast desert and some exteriors of the main city, both of which I would concede are impressive.
The score was composed by Alan Menken who also composed the score for the previous film. Here he has come up with a score that seems no more than passable, as if his mind and efforts were more focused on the songs. Getting onto the songs now, I feel somewhat conflicted about them as each one got a very different response from me than the last. With one of them I thought they were trying too hard, another not hard enough. And then just done well enough for me to take notice. In the end I would have to call the music in this film middling.
Here is the one flaw I have with the film, it's just too long. With a runtime of 128 minutes, instead of telling the audience a familiar story with something new occasionally thrown in, the film chooses to drag out as many scenes as it can for as long as it can. It even felt like a whole hour had passed before we even got to the main plot of the film. Maybe they could have got away with this first time around but surely not in a remake of a story this well known. I find this to be a disappointment and hope lessons are learned if these remakes are to continue.
The conclusions I draw from this are, Aladdin has one standout performance, a script that respects the original source material and has ideas of its own that it wishes to pursue. Some impressive shots to be found in the cinematography, and a middling score featuring songs that will depend on how you feel at the end of each one. And of the course the film suffers horribly from being overlong and having scenes that are dragged out as far as they can go.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Aladdin...
C-
Thank you for reading.
Sunday 26 May 2019
The Secret Life of Pets 2 Review
The Secret Life of Pets 2 is directed by Chris Renaud, and features an all star voice cast that incudes Patton Oswalt, Kevin Hart, Jenney Slate, Lake Bell, Tiffany Haddish, Dana Carvey and Harrison Ford. Plus many more.
The film revolves around Max the terrier adjusting to several new changes in his life that have occurred since the end of the first film, while some of the other pets get into situations of their own.
This film has unfortunately no standout performances and they all feel of an average standard. There are moments where the likes of Hart and Ford shine briefly in their roles, but there is no denying that, animal or human, live action or animation, the actors would choose to portray their characters exactly same way.
The film was written by Bryan Lynch and I must admit I was very impressed with the script. The three acts are structured very well; you can feel where one ends and another begins, also the comedy dialogue and slapstick have seen some areas of improvement but are still carried out with the same high energy that made the first one so enjoyable. And most importantly some characters get what I felt was a good amount of development.
This film is of course an Illumination production and is animated in their signature style. And the animation is just fine, everything is very bright and colourful as always. The characters' expressions are mostly quite clear. It's interesting to look at certain things like New York City and how that's been animated. But the downside of it is that there has been little improvement on it since the last film this company released just under two years ago.
The score was composed by Alexandre Desplat who of course composed the music for the first one, and here the score felt as if he just took the most exciting aspects of the first one and made one or two slight changes. You can even feel the lack of effort that was put into this, even if the score is something you're not paying that much attention to. I can barely remember any parts of the score from the film itself but I do have clear memories of music from the trailers that I saw. Clearly there is an issue when the music used in a film's marketing is more memorable than the music in the final product.
The one flaw that damaged my viewing experience is this: near the end of the film, a subplot and the main plot clash somewhat and I felt that it caused the film to drag on a bit, especially for a film that is just over an hour and a half long, and the sublot was already going on longer than it needed to. I didn't understand any of this. Why did those two particular things need to come together? Why is what was meant to be a small side story taking so long to resolve? Aren't subplots meant to stay on their own and not negatively effect the main plot of the film? In this case, however, this one did and I was not impressed.
The conclusions I draw from this are that Secret Life of Pets 2 has average voice acting performances, with good moments from certain actors; a surprisingly good script that was well-structured and had improved on what was well liked from the first; average animation with very few things that are interesting to look; and a score that feels like it has slightly updated material from its predecessor. And of course, the subplot flaw that I really did not expect to find in an animated kids' film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give The Secret Life of Pets 2...
B-
Thank you for reading.
Friday 17 May 2019
John Wick Chapter 3- Parabellum. Review
John Wick Chapter 3 - Parabellum is directed by Chad Stahelski and stars Keanu Reeves, Halle Berry, Laurence Fishburne, Mark Dacascos, Asia Kate Dillon, Lance Reddick, Anjelica Houston and Ian McShane.
The plot this time revolves around John Wick going on the run after killing someone on Continental grounds, and reaching out to whoever may be willing to help him as a contact has been put on his life. And he is now the target of some of the world's top assassins.
The performances in this film are all very mixed, some work on a very serious and dramatic level, and others work on a more light-hearted level. The standout performance in this film is Keanu Reeves as John Wick. He plays the character in very much the same way he has in the previous two films. Only this time, when he is present on screen you get a sense of desperation and urgency which made his situation all the more believable
The film was written by Derek Kolstad, Shay Hatten, Chris Collins and Mark Abrahams. Once again we have fight scenes that have been choreographed rather impressively, and lots of brutal, hard-hitting action. The thing that really impressed me about it, and what make this film slightly different among the rest, is how effortlessly it can take a very violent scene and use it to have a moment of dark humour.
The film was shot by Jonathan Sela. I thought most of the cinematography was fine on average scale, but the standout shots for me were the ones of New York City. From the vehicle-filled roads, the highly-populated streets, and the brightly-lit neon buildings. I thought those were not only very visually interesting but also helped to give an accurate depiction of a real city.
The score was composed by Tyler Bates and Joel J Richard. The score is very much the same as before, rather a lot of electronic dance music, but with the exception of a brief use of sitar music when a character is stuck in the desert. It just felt like a lack of effort, followed by an attempt to compensate by adding minor new elements to the score, that in the end come off as forgettable and pitiful.
Here is where I feel the film is most flawed: it has a runtime of two hours and eleven minutes, making it the longest John Wick film. Unfortunately I don't feel that the longer runtime was taken full advantage of. A few of the fight scenes go on for so long that they begin to feel quite padded. What I found even worse about this is that, when a fight has gone on for far too long it's difficult to remain interested in it and it just becomes boring.
The conclusions I draw from this are, John Wick Chapter 3 -Parabellum has good performances, a script that definitely doesn't disappoint, some interesting nightlife visuals in the cinematography, and a complete failure of a score. And a major flaw that I was convinced a movie like John Wick would have no problem avoiding, it seems I expected too much of him.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give John Wick Chapter3 - Parabellum...
B
Thank you for reading.
The plot this time revolves around John Wick going on the run after killing someone on Continental grounds, and reaching out to whoever may be willing to help him as a contact has been put on his life. And he is now the target of some of the world's top assassins.
The performances in this film are all very mixed, some work on a very serious and dramatic level, and others work on a more light-hearted level. The standout performance in this film is Keanu Reeves as John Wick. He plays the character in very much the same way he has in the previous two films. Only this time, when he is present on screen you get a sense of desperation and urgency which made his situation all the more believable
The film was written by Derek Kolstad, Shay Hatten, Chris Collins and Mark Abrahams. Once again we have fight scenes that have been choreographed rather impressively, and lots of brutal, hard-hitting action. The thing that really impressed me about it, and what make this film slightly different among the rest, is how effortlessly it can take a very violent scene and use it to have a moment of dark humour.
The film was shot by Jonathan Sela. I thought most of the cinematography was fine on average scale, but the standout shots for me were the ones of New York City. From the vehicle-filled roads, the highly-populated streets, and the brightly-lit neon buildings. I thought those were not only very visually interesting but also helped to give an accurate depiction of a real city.
The score was composed by Tyler Bates and Joel J Richard. The score is very much the same as before, rather a lot of electronic dance music, but with the exception of a brief use of sitar music when a character is stuck in the desert. It just felt like a lack of effort, followed by an attempt to compensate by adding minor new elements to the score, that in the end come off as forgettable and pitiful.
Here is where I feel the film is most flawed: it has a runtime of two hours and eleven minutes, making it the longest John Wick film. Unfortunately I don't feel that the longer runtime was taken full advantage of. A few of the fight scenes go on for so long that they begin to feel quite padded. What I found even worse about this is that, when a fight has gone on for far too long it's difficult to remain interested in it and it just becomes boring.
The conclusions I draw from this are, John Wick Chapter 3 -Parabellum has good performances, a script that definitely doesn't disappoint, some interesting nightlife visuals in the cinematography, and a complete failure of a score. And a major flaw that I was convinced a movie like John Wick would have no problem avoiding, it seems I expected too much of him.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give John Wick Chapter3 - Parabellum...
B
Thank you for reading.
Monday 13 May 2019
Pokemon Detective Pikachu Review
Pokémon - Detective Pikachu is directed by Rob Letterman and stars Justice Smith, Kathryn Newton, Suki Waterhouse, Omar Chaparro, Chris Geere, Ken Watanabe and Bill Nighy. And of course Ryan Reynolds provides the voice of Pikachu. And I would like to consider this movie a video game adaptation, instead of an anime adaptation.
The film is about a young man and former Pokémon trainer who travels to a place called Rhyme City to look for his detective father who has disappeared. Eventually he encounters Pikachu and the two decide to go looking for the missing detective together.
The performances are all passable but it is Reynolds as Pikachu who stands out among them. Although he plays the part in a very one note way, he tries to get the most humour and likeability out of every line he is given and is surprisingly good at being emotional when he needs to be. I especially thought that was impressive since his character isn't exactly the emotional type.
The film was written by Rob Letterman, Derek Connolly, Dan Hernandez and Benji Samit. My thoughts going in were that this film was going to be some kind of detective film/ Pokémon hybrid, and I feel I was right. Those two things are balanced out quite well, it alternates a few minutes as a Pokémon film with a few minutes as a detective film. An issue I did have with the script was that the human characters were rather uninteresting. In the end this script is just average, it's got a fair share of good and a fair share of bad to it.
The film was shot by John Mathieson. I would say the shots I was most impressed with were those that blended the CGI Pokémon into signature noir cinema shots. Examples include, the well-lit noir street, a character being questioned under a light bulb, and a shot of an unidentifiable person standing in the shadows. What I liked about them was that the Pokémon characters blended into the shot quite naturally and never at any point felt like they were out of place.
The score was composed by Henry Jackman, and the problem with it is that nothing stands out, there are maybe a few moments that sound noteworthy when you hear them at the time, but once that is over, you realise just how easily forgettable it actually is.
Here is the one major flaw with this film: it feels over-reliant on the property that it is based on. I have heard of plenty of movies based on popular franchises where you don't have to be a fan to enjoy them. This film is not one of them; there is very little for non-Pokémon fans to enjoy here. While I do understand who the film's core audience is, and clearly the film does too, if you have never bothered with Pokémon in your life, don't let this be your introduction.
I also found the final twist to be very hard to take seriously. There is definitely a simpler way to carry out the twist ending, but the way this film has chosen to do it just had me thinking in the end, what?
In conclusion, Pokémon - Detective Pikachu has good performances and a well-balanced but average script. Some interesting visuals are to be found in the cinematography, and a score that sounds good at the time but is ultimately forgettable. Plus, the film is flawed in relying too much on the property it is based on and a twist ending which just left me confused. I will emphasise what I said before - don't let this be your introduction to Pokémon.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, im going to give Pokémon Detective Pikachu...
C
Thank you for reading.
The film is about a young man and former Pokémon trainer who travels to a place called Rhyme City to look for his detective father who has disappeared. Eventually he encounters Pikachu and the two decide to go looking for the missing detective together.
The performances are all passable but it is Reynolds as Pikachu who stands out among them. Although he plays the part in a very one note way, he tries to get the most humour and likeability out of every line he is given and is surprisingly good at being emotional when he needs to be. I especially thought that was impressive since his character isn't exactly the emotional type.
The film was written by Rob Letterman, Derek Connolly, Dan Hernandez and Benji Samit. My thoughts going in were that this film was going to be some kind of detective film/ Pokémon hybrid, and I feel I was right. Those two things are balanced out quite well, it alternates a few minutes as a Pokémon film with a few minutes as a detective film. An issue I did have with the script was that the human characters were rather uninteresting. In the end this script is just average, it's got a fair share of good and a fair share of bad to it.
The film was shot by John Mathieson. I would say the shots I was most impressed with were those that blended the CGI Pokémon into signature noir cinema shots. Examples include, the well-lit noir street, a character being questioned under a light bulb, and a shot of an unidentifiable person standing in the shadows. What I liked about them was that the Pokémon characters blended into the shot quite naturally and never at any point felt like they were out of place.
The score was composed by Henry Jackman, and the problem with it is that nothing stands out, there are maybe a few moments that sound noteworthy when you hear them at the time, but once that is over, you realise just how easily forgettable it actually is.
Here is the one major flaw with this film: it feels over-reliant on the property that it is based on. I have heard of plenty of movies based on popular franchises where you don't have to be a fan to enjoy them. This film is not one of them; there is very little for non-Pokémon fans to enjoy here. While I do understand who the film's core audience is, and clearly the film does too, if you have never bothered with Pokémon in your life, don't let this be your introduction.
I also found the final twist to be very hard to take seriously. There is definitely a simpler way to carry out the twist ending, but the way this film has chosen to do it just had me thinking in the end, what?
In conclusion, Pokémon - Detective Pikachu has good performances and a well-balanced but average script. Some interesting visuals are to be found in the cinematography, and a score that sounds good at the time but is ultimately forgettable. Plus, the film is flawed in relying too much on the property it is based on and a twist ending which just left me confused. I will emphasise what I said before - don't let this be your introduction to Pokémon.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, im going to give Pokémon Detective Pikachu...
C
Thank you for reading.
Monday 6 May 2019
Pet Sematary Review
Pet Sematary is directed by Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer and stars Jason Clarke, Amy Semeniz and John Lithgow and of course is based on the best-selling book by Stephen King.
This film follows a family of four who move to the countryside for a fresh start, but very odd things start to happen to them once they find out that part of their property is a pet cemetery.
For performances, no one here is bad and Jason Clarke as Dr Creed is especially good. He plays a man who is one hundred percent sceptic, so when all kinds of strange things start to happen he has to question his beliefs. And we see him give a very attention-grabbing performance as an everyday man slowly descending into madness.
The film was scripted by Jeff Buhler and of course he has adapted his script from Stephen King's book. It's full of all the usual horror clichés, from jump-scares to overly intense scenes and not forgetting horror-movie music stings to go along with some of the jump scares. I have not read the book, but from what I know about the source material all the key characters mostly transition faithfully from page to screen. There were some liberties taken, but more about that later.
The film was shot by Laurie Rose. I was satisfied with the cinematography for most of the runtime, but what struck me the most were without doubt the shots of the cemetery at night. They create an unsettling feeling and atmosphere in the viewer. And then you start to wonder, is something going to happen out here...?
The score was composed by Christopher Young, and he's done an average job of it. As mentioned before he uses horror music stings many times, but the standout moment for the score takes place in the middle of the movie during the funeral scene. Just by the sound of the score being played in the background, with not a single word being said, we can feel the grief being experienced by everyone in the scene.
The flaws which I think diminished the experience a bit for me were as follows. In an attempt to (I imagine) stay faithful to the source material as much as possible, the movie features a recreation of the novel's most famous death scene. It plays out almost in exactly the same way as it does in the book, except with one very notable difference. A difference I'm not even sure was required because up to a point, the outcomes of both situations remain the same so I don't believe it was an improvement.
Another flaw I found with the film is that I don't feel it's really a Stephen King adaptation. I think he is best known for memorable plots and characters, whereas this feels more like an above average, but fairly standard horror thriller. While it keeps your interest and is an intriguing mystery with a well-rounded group of characters, it doesn't say 'Stephen King' to me.
The conclusion I draw from this is that Pet Sematary has good performances, a cliched but still satisfactory script, and a score that works when the moment is right.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Pet Sematary
B-.
Thank you for reading.
This film follows a family of four who move to the countryside for a fresh start, but very odd things start to happen to them once they find out that part of their property is a pet cemetery.
For performances, no one here is bad and Jason Clarke as Dr Creed is especially good. He plays a man who is one hundred percent sceptic, so when all kinds of strange things start to happen he has to question his beliefs. And we see him give a very attention-grabbing performance as an everyday man slowly descending into madness.
The film was scripted by Jeff Buhler and of course he has adapted his script from Stephen King's book. It's full of all the usual horror clichés, from jump-scares to overly intense scenes and not forgetting horror-movie music stings to go along with some of the jump scares. I have not read the book, but from what I know about the source material all the key characters mostly transition faithfully from page to screen. There were some liberties taken, but more about that later.
The film was shot by Laurie Rose. I was satisfied with the cinematography for most of the runtime, but what struck me the most were without doubt the shots of the cemetery at night. They create an unsettling feeling and atmosphere in the viewer. And then you start to wonder, is something going to happen out here...?
The score was composed by Christopher Young, and he's done an average job of it. As mentioned before he uses horror music stings many times, but the standout moment for the score takes place in the middle of the movie during the funeral scene. Just by the sound of the score being played in the background, with not a single word being said, we can feel the grief being experienced by everyone in the scene.
The flaws which I think diminished the experience a bit for me were as follows. In an attempt to (I imagine) stay faithful to the source material as much as possible, the movie features a recreation of the novel's most famous death scene. It plays out almost in exactly the same way as it does in the book, except with one very notable difference. A difference I'm not even sure was required because up to a point, the outcomes of both situations remain the same so I don't believe it was an improvement.
Another flaw I found with the film is that I don't feel it's really a Stephen King adaptation. I think he is best known for memorable plots and characters, whereas this feels more like an above average, but fairly standard horror thriller. While it keeps your interest and is an intriguing mystery with a well-rounded group of characters, it doesn't say 'Stephen King' to me.
The conclusion I draw from this is that Pet Sematary has good performances, a cliched but still satisfactory script, and a score that works when the moment is right.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Pet Sematary
B-.
Thank you for reading.
Dumbo Review
Dumbo is directed by Tim Burton and stars Colin Farrell, Michael Keaton, Danny DeVito, Eva Green and Alan Arkin.
This film follows the very well-known story of an elephant with unusually-sized ears who is born into a struggling circus, and goes from being its biggest problem to being its new hit. Then the plot takes a new turn with the arrival of a wealthy entrepreneur who claims he can make even better use of the elephant than the circus can.
I take no pleasure in saying this but this film has no standout performances which I found a shame because with such a large and talented cast the potential feels very real. There are moments where Keaton's and Farrell's characters shine briefly. Besides that, no one grabbed my attention in particular.
I will however praise the CGI Dumbo; what I liked about him was how clearly his eyes could show what emotions he was supposed to be feeling. You could tell when he was happy, sad or even scared. And in terms of CGI, I think that's quite a step forward considering where we were with it about twenty years ago.
The film was written by Ehren Kruger and he maintains that this is a retelling of the same story by retaining several of its pivotal moments, such as how Dumbo loses his mother, the baby mine scene and how Dumbo learns to fly. And of course we see in full colour the pink elephants. Problems begin when you take into account the additions for this new version. They are either replacements of old characters, old characters given a bit more of a personality than they probably had in the original. And the characters who are entirely new to this story are either clichéd, or seem like interesting ideas that are not followed through.
The film was shot by Ben Davis and most of the time the visuals are fine - the standout moment for this is surely the pink elephants scene, as it felt very visually interesting and just about the only thing that contained any of Burton's signature surrealism. It reminded me that this was one of his movies that I was watching.
The score was composed by long time Burton collaborator Danny Elfman, and to add another disappointment his work here is not very impressive or memorable, it's just like: here's some happy- sounding music - feel happy! or sad music - feel sad! If the music has any standout moments it's from the rendition of the baby mine song. I thought it was done in a way that was respecting the original while also not being a full-on imitation.
But the main score is made all the more disappointing by the fact that so many of Elfman's best-known works are the themes he wrote for Burtons films, and they are usually memorable and in their own way unique. I don't know what happened here, but I don't like it.
Here is my major flaw with this film - why is it being directed by someone like Tim Burton? This feels like it could have been directed by anyone and it's directed by a man with one of the most unique styles of directing ever. And it's rarely on display here. It feels like a waste of a very talented director. I hope something like this never happens again.
My conclusions here are, that Dumbo has a talented but mostly wasted cast, a script that wants to please fans both old and new, and yet give us a new story. And a very unfortunate, uninspired score from someone who is very often a great composer. And that's before I even mention the lack of style from the director, most disappointing.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Dumbo...
D
Thank you for reading.
This film follows the very well-known story of an elephant with unusually-sized ears who is born into a struggling circus, and goes from being its biggest problem to being its new hit. Then the plot takes a new turn with the arrival of a wealthy entrepreneur who claims he can make even better use of the elephant than the circus can.
I take no pleasure in saying this but this film has no standout performances which I found a shame because with such a large and talented cast the potential feels very real. There are moments where Keaton's and Farrell's characters shine briefly. Besides that, no one grabbed my attention in particular.
I will however praise the CGI Dumbo; what I liked about him was how clearly his eyes could show what emotions he was supposed to be feeling. You could tell when he was happy, sad or even scared. And in terms of CGI, I think that's quite a step forward considering where we were with it about twenty years ago.
The film was written by Ehren Kruger and he maintains that this is a retelling of the same story by retaining several of its pivotal moments, such as how Dumbo loses his mother, the baby mine scene and how Dumbo learns to fly. And of course we see in full colour the pink elephants. Problems begin when you take into account the additions for this new version. They are either replacements of old characters, old characters given a bit more of a personality than they probably had in the original. And the characters who are entirely new to this story are either clichéd, or seem like interesting ideas that are not followed through.
The film was shot by Ben Davis and most of the time the visuals are fine - the standout moment for this is surely the pink elephants scene, as it felt very visually interesting and just about the only thing that contained any of Burton's signature surrealism. It reminded me that this was one of his movies that I was watching.
The score was composed by long time Burton collaborator Danny Elfman, and to add another disappointment his work here is not very impressive or memorable, it's just like: here's some happy- sounding music - feel happy! or sad music - feel sad! If the music has any standout moments it's from the rendition of the baby mine song. I thought it was done in a way that was respecting the original while also not being a full-on imitation.
But the main score is made all the more disappointing by the fact that so many of Elfman's best-known works are the themes he wrote for Burtons films, and they are usually memorable and in their own way unique. I don't know what happened here, but I don't like it.
Here is my major flaw with this film - why is it being directed by someone like Tim Burton? This feels like it could have been directed by anyone and it's directed by a man with one of the most unique styles of directing ever. And it's rarely on display here. It feels like a waste of a very talented director. I hope something like this never happens again.
My conclusions here are, that Dumbo has a talented but mostly wasted cast, a script that wants to please fans both old and new, and yet give us a new story. And a very unfortunate, uninspired score from someone who is very often a great composer. And that's before I even mention the lack of style from the director, most disappointing.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Dumbo...
D
Thank you for reading.
Shazam! Review
Shazam was directed by David F Sandberg, and stars Zachary Levi, Mark Strong, Asher Angel, Jack Dylan Grazer and Djimon Hounsou. It is based on the DC comics character.
This film is about an orphan who receives the power to turn into an adult superhero with a range of powers whenever he says the word 'shazam'. And like the last DC comics adaptation, Aquaman, this film goes for a more light-hearted approach that sometimes works and other times does not.
The performances in this film are rather mixed, Levi for example embodies the childlike personality of the hero very well and has fun with it, but someone like Jack Dylan Grazer at times seems very energetic and very loud and very annoying. I think the most notable performance is Mark Strong as the villain. He was charismatic, had good screen presence and when he is in a scene there's no doubt the whole room belongs to him.
The film was scripted by Henry Gayden. He has given the script a very basic origin story, with a greater emphasis on fun and humour, plus some drama to balance things out. While I do think all these things are balanced out well, I will say that if you want to get a laugh out of this it will require the acceptance and ability to laugh at low-grade humour; if you can't do that you will find it unbearably obnoxious!
The film was shot by Maxime Alexandre, and unfortunately looks unremarkable, the only thing that stood out to me as visually interesting is the look of the cave and the things that surround it, as they are very different from everything else and you feel a change of tone every time you see them.
The score was composed by Benjamín Wallfisch who has composed a very formulaic superhero movie score. This is especially evident in his main theme- instead of trying to write something original, he appears to have chosen the best-loved superhero themes, made his own adjustments to them and compiled them all together. The result does sound adventurous and exciting, but there is no denying it's lacking in ambition and inspiration.
Here is my major flaw with this film - it's the main character of Shazam! I feel like that there is nothing much at stake with him because he seems invulnerable to anything that happens. Any time he does appear to suffer harm, it's used for comic relief. Plus, when the time comes for him to seriously fight a villain he's backed up by another four or five heroes, all with their own powers. This only adds to his invulnerability, and lack of believability. The climactic fight just feels overlong and boring.
The conclusions I draw from this are that Shazam! has some variable performances, a humorous script where sometimes the jokes land successfully and at other times do not. There's only one thing that's visually interesting to look at and to finish it you have a score with a main theme that suits the movie but is an undeniable imitation of various other themes. The film also fails badly in the areas of investment in the characters and their believability.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Shazam!..
C
Thank you for reading.
This film is about an orphan who receives the power to turn into an adult superhero with a range of powers whenever he says the word 'shazam'. And like the last DC comics adaptation, Aquaman, this film goes for a more light-hearted approach that sometimes works and other times does not.
The performances in this film are rather mixed, Levi for example embodies the childlike personality of the hero very well and has fun with it, but someone like Jack Dylan Grazer at times seems very energetic and very loud and very annoying. I think the most notable performance is Mark Strong as the villain. He was charismatic, had good screen presence and when he is in a scene there's no doubt the whole room belongs to him.
The film was scripted by Henry Gayden. He has given the script a very basic origin story, with a greater emphasis on fun and humour, plus some drama to balance things out. While I do think all these things are balanced out well, I will say that if you want to get a laugh out of this it will require the acceptance and ability to laugh at low-grade humour; if you can't do that you will find it unbearably obnoxious!
The film was shot by Maxime Alexandre, and unfortunately looks unremarkable, the only thing that stood out to me as visually interesting is the look of the cave and the things that surround it, as they are very different from everything else and you feel a change of tone every time you see them.
The score was composed by Benjamín Wallfisch who has composed a very formulaic superhero movie score. This is especially evident in his main theme- instead of trying to write something original, he appears to have chosen the best-loved superhero themes, made his own adjustments to them and compiled them all together. The result does sound adventurous and exciting, but there is no denying it's lacking in ambition and inspiration.
Here is my major flaw with this film - it's the main character of Shazam! I feel like that there is nothing much at stake with him because he seems invulnerable to anything that happens. Any time he does appear to suffer harm, it's used for comic relief. Plus, when the time comes for him to seriously fight a villain he's backed up by another four or five heroes, all with their own powers. This only adds to his invulnerability, and lack of believability. The climactic fight just feels overlong and boring.
The conclusions I draw from this are that Shazam! has some variable performances, a humorous script where sometimes the jokes land successfully and at other times do not. There's only one thing that's visually interesting to look at and to finish it you have a score with a main theme that suits the movie but is an undeniable imitation of various other themes. The film also fails badly in the areas of investment in the characters and their believability.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Shazam!..
C
Thank you for reading.
Hellboy Review
Hellboy was directed by Neil Marshall and stars David Harbour, Mila Jovovitch, Ian McShane, Sasha Lane, Daniel Dae Kim. and Thomas Haden Church.
This film follows the titular protagonist and his team as they attempt to stop the resurrection of an evil sorceress who wants to unleash a plague upon the world. And he also learns some things about himself and his past along the way.
For the film's performances, we have a very talented cast with us, but unfortunately most of them seem perfectly happy to walk around this movie with bad English accents. McShane's accent is probably the least embarrassing accent in the film. But that is undoubtedly due to him actually being English so leave it to the professionals. David Harbour as Hellboy is definitely the film's best performance. He has wit, he has attitude, he can be dramatic when he needs to be, and to all that he adds all-round likeability to his character that keeps you watching and for the most part entertained.
The film was written by Andrew Cosby, and this script holds very little back and goes all the way with just about anything you can do in these slightly edgier comic adaptations. From the first few minuets we get seemingly endless amounts of profanity, and a beyond-excretive amount of violence and gore. Plus an unconventional narrator who doesn't seem to mind indulging in obscenities. Then there is the subplot of how humans feel about Hellboy and how he feels about them. The script does try to keep the main plot and subplot separate, so they may develop at their own pace, but it's when the two plots try to merge felt to me very convoluted and left me a bit confused.
The film was shot by Lorenzo Senatore. An acceptable job has been done with the cinematography, its not anything breathtaking. There's a battle at the start in black and white, which is interesting to admire as we don't get many things in black and white any more. Other than that it's just a lot of shots of city streets that many people are familiar with - except filled with monsters, and lots of blood.
The score was composed by Benjamin Wallfisch, who coincidentally just composed Shazam, which I have also just reviewed. Here it seems he is trying to make a soundtrack that fits the tone of the film with some moments of very loud and hard rock music, but also allowing himself the opportunity to try some other things along the way which gave the score a nice feeling of variety about it.
Now I shall move on to the flaws, one of which is that this film at times is far too loud - whether it's a fight scene and things are falling all over the place, or the use of rock music has got out of hand to the point of being nothing more than disturbingly loud.
Here is my other issue, I feel like this film has an over-reliance on gore. Many movies based on comics have had their fair share of gore and violence, but there was always a balance to make time for the story and characters to develop. With this film there is no feeling of balance and the gore nearly becomes exploitative.
What I draw from this is that Hellboy has one good key performance out of a huge number of bad ones, a script working too hard to cover too much, a few interesting visuals worth admiring and a score that will largely rest on your tolerance of heavy rock. And lastly it suffers shamelessly from being far too loud in certain places and choosing gore over things that would give the film at least a little more quality than it has.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Hellboy
C+
Thank you for reading.
This film follows the titular protagonist and his team as they attempt to stop the resurrection of an evil sorceress who wants to unleash a plague upon the world. And he also learns some things about himself and his past along the way.
For the film's performances, we have a very talented cast with us, but unfortunately most of them seem perfectly happy to walk around this movie with bad English accents. McShane's accent is probably the least embarrassing accent in the film. But that is undoubtedly due to him actually being English so leave it to the professionals. David Harbour as Hellboy is definitely the film's best performance. He has wit, he has attitude, he can be dramatic when he needs to be, and to all that he adds all-round likeability to his character that keeps you watching and for the most part entertained.
The film was written by Andrew Cosby, and this script holds very little back and goes all the way with just about anything you can do in these slightly edgier comic adaptations. From the first few minuets we get seemingly endless amounts of profanity, and a beyond-excretive amount of violence and gore. Plus an unconventional narrator who doesn't seem to mind indulging in obscenities. Then there is the subplot of how humans feel about Hellboy and how he feels about them. The script does try to keep the main plot and subplot separate, so they may develop at their own pace, but it's when the two plots try to merge felt to me very convoluted and left me a bit confused.
The film was shot by Lorenzo Senatore. An acceptable job has been done with the cinematography, its not anything breathtaking. There's a battle at the start in black and white, which is interesting to admire as we don't get many things in black and white any more. Other than that it's just a lot of shots of city streets that many people are familiar with - except filled with monsters, and lots of blood.
The score was composed by Benjamin Wallfisch, who coincidentally just composed Shazam, which I have also just reviewed. Here it seems he is trying to make a soundtrack that fits the tone of the film with some moments of very loud and hard rock music, but also allowing himself the opportunity to try some other things along the way which gave the score a nice feeling of variety about it.
Now I shall move on to the flaws, one of which is that this film at times is far too loud - whether it's a fight scene and things are falling all over the place, or the use of rock music has got out of hand to the point of being nothing more than disturbingly loud.
Here is my other issue, I feel like this film has an over-reliance on gore. Many movies based on comics have had their fair share of gore and violence, but there was always a balance to make time for the story and characters to develop. With this film there is no feeling of balance and the gore nearly becomes exploitative.
What I draw from this is that Hellboy has one good key performance out of a huge number of bad ones, a script working too hard to cover too much, a few interesting visuals worth admiring and a score that will largely rest on your tolerance of heavy rock. And lastly it suffers shamelessly from being far too loud in certain places and choosing gore over things that would give the film at least a little more quality than it has.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Hellboy
C+
Thank you for reading.
Tolkien Review
Tolkien is directed by Dome Karukoski and stars Nicolas Hoult, Lilly Collins, Colm Meaney and Derek Jacobi.
The film is about the life of the famous novelist J R R Tolkien, the friends he made, what he experienced when he served in the First World War, and how all that and other parts of his life would inspire him to write his Lord of the Rings trilogy.
The film has many performances of average standard, but one that stands out certainly comes from Nicolas Hoult as Tolkien himself. I feel like there were three very different sides to his character, there was the imaginative gentlemen side of him, the frustrated young man side of him, and the scared and confused, but still determined soldier at war. With all at his disposal he gives a performance that is both distinct from most of his previous work, and most of all believable.
The film was written by David Gleason and Stephen Beresford. With this film, it appears the writers have chosen to somewhat leave the traditions of the biopic, and focus instead on the early life of its subject before he becomes a success in life. What we have instead is a film about friendships, romance and passion for languages. So you will definitely have to try and care about the characters if you want some enjoyment out of what feels like a period drama. But not to worry, there are a few wartime scenes that maintain your interest when you feel you feel it starting to go down a bit. Also, I will admit I do think that for a biopic that doesn't entirely go by the formula, it's not perfect, but it's a start.
The film was shot by Lasse Frank, and while most of the shots are perfectly fine, it's the shots of things from Tolkien's point of view that are most eye-catching, whether its a dragon breathing out fire, or flames burning all over the place. You can look at them and think, Tolkien would have seen it like that and that's how it would be depicted in his books. I also thought it was quite an interesting way to incorporate some of the things from Tolkien's book into the movie, so you could see where they came from.
The score was composed by Thomas Newman, and I had some very mixed feelings towards his work here. On the one hand, most of it plays like an unremarkable and easily dismissed period drama score, but at certain points, I was sure I could hear the kind of music audiences mainly associate with the fantasy genre. I can only think of two reasons for this, one to appease the LOTR fans who are undoubtedly watching this and are probably bored, or it's the film's way of reminding you who this film is supposed to be about. Whichever it is, it certainly didn't help the score win any of my respect.
Here is my main criticism of the movie: it's that we see Tolkien setting to work on one of his books, and then the movie is over. We don't see the book come out, or see him enjoy his success. I just find it rather unusual that we have a character who goes through so much, and when it comes time for what could be called the payoff, the movie just ends.
The conclusions I draw from this are that Tolkien has an interesting plot, a good performance from its lead actor and a script that's rather more unconventional than many others in its genre. Some rather striking visuals with the cinematography, a score that at best give you mixed feelings. And one flaw that I could see Tolkien fans scratching their heads at.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Tolkien:
B-
Thank you for reading.
The film is about the life of the famous novelist J R R Tolkien, the friends he made, what he experienced when he served in the First World War, and how all that and other parts of his life would inspire him to write his Lord of the Rings trilogy.
The film has many performances of average standard, but one that stands out certainly comes from Nicolas Hoult as Tolkien himself. I feel like there were three very different sides to his character, there was the imaginative gentlemen side of him, the frustrated young man side of him, and the scared and confused, but still determined soldier at war. With all at his disposal he gives a performance that is both distinct from most of his previous work, and most of all believable.
The film was written by David Gleason and Stephen Beresford. With this film, it appears the writers have chosen to somewhat leave the traditions of the biopic, and focus instead on the early life of its subject before he becomes a success in life. What we have instead is a film about friendships, romance and passion for languages. So you will definitely have to try and care about the characters if you want some enjoyment out of what feels like a period drama. But not to worry, there are a few wartime scenes that maintain your interest when you feel you feel it starting to go down a bit. Also, I will admit I do think that for a biopic that doesn't entirely go by the formula, it's not perfect, but it's a start.
The film was shot by Lasse Frank, and while most of the shots are perfectly fine, it's the shots of things from Tolkien's point of view that are most eye-catching, whether its a dragon breathing out fire, or flames burning all over the place. You can look at them and think, Tolkien would have seen it like that and that's how it would be depicted in his books. I also thought it was quite an interesting way to incorporate some of the things from Tolkien's book into the movie, so you could see where they came from.
The score was composed by Thomas Newman, and I had some very mixed feelings towards his work here. On the one hand, most of it plays like an unremarkable and easily dismissed period drama score, but at certain points, I was sure I could hear the kind of music audiences mainly associate with the fantasy genre. I can only think of two reasons for this, one to appease the LOTR fans who are undoubtedly watching this and are probably bored, or it's the film's way of reminding you who this film is supposed to be about. Whichever it is, it certainly didn't help the score win any of my respect.
Here is my main criticism of the movie: it's that we see Tolkien setting to work on one of his books, and then the movie is over. We don't see the book come out, or see him enjoy his success. I just find it rather unusual that we have a character who goes through so much, and when it comes time for what could be called the payoff, the movie just ends.
The conclusions I draw from this are that Tolkien has an interesting plot, a good performance from its lead actor and a script that's rather more unconventional than many others in its genre. Some rather striking visuals with the cinematography, a score that at best give you mixed feelings. And one flaw that I could see Tolkien fans scratching their heads at.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Tolkien:
B-
Thank you for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)