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.
Tuesday 25 June 2019
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)