The Current War was directed by Alfonso Gomez-Rejon and stars Benedict Cumberbatch, Michael Shannon, Katherine Waterson, Tom Holland, Tuppence Middleton, Matthew Macfadyen and Nicholas Hoult.
The plot revolves around the race by scientists Thomas Edison, and partners George Westinghouse and Nikolai Tesla, to produce a form of electricity that's cheap and safe, so that it can go on to power the world.
For performances, Cumberbatch as Edison certainly makes himself stand out reasonably well. He manages to pull off an American accent quite well and demonstrates that this kind of character can be someone the audience is supposed to root for and like one minute, then maybe not be so sure about the next. Tom Holland was fine, his character was fairly likeable and had a very believable dynamic with Cumberbatch. Michael Shannon as Westinghouse was just average, I know what Shannon is capable of as an actor, it's just that here he didn't really live up to those standards. And lastly Nicholas Hoult as Tesla didn't really stand out to me in any way. It just felt like he was trying to prove some kind of versatility by having seemingly perfected a Serbian accent
The film was written by Matthew Mitnick and what stood out to me about the script was how it took its subject matter and the principal people involved and told their story in a way that was informed but not too complicated. I think that was a good choice because it means that those who are experts on the subject matter of this film can go and see it and be satisfied with its depiction; but it's also prepared to cater to the needs of those who don't know too much about the scientific aspects of the film. I would call this an impressive script that addresses its subject matter in a very crowd-pleasing way.
The film was shot by Chung-hoon Chung, and most of his shots for the film are fine, there's one standout shot right at the start of a group of people walking around in darkness. In a way it summed up what the film was going to be about. There are also some strange visual choices at times, being mostly just strip-shaped pictures of animals that come out of nowhere. And I'm sure I saw some editing choices in the film that resembled fast cutting. I know I said something similar in a recent review, but fast cuts in a period drama are beyond out of place and they feel slightly disorientating.
The score was composed by Hauschka and Dustin O`Halloran, and to my disappointment their work failed to impress. It just sounds like another generic period drama score with barely noticeable sounds occasionally put in that are meant to help to give it some form of distinction that it unfortunately does not achieve. It's also very forgettable, but with period drama scores it's a situation where once you have heard one, you have heard them all.
The one flaw that severely damaged my viewing experience with this film is that it was very slow at times, and despite a somewhat well-paced opening it eventually slowed down, scenes dragged on for far too long and it mostly got boring. And the pacing becomes such a problem to a point where it becomes a struggle just to stay invested in the film and its story.
The conclusions that I draw from this are that: The Current War has good performances; a script that manages to be both impressive and crowd-pleasing; one standout shot in the cinematography that sets up the film well, along with some noteworthy visuals; and a very generic score that's very easily forgettable.. But it's severely flawed in its terribly slow pacing and fails to maintain what was a relatively well-paced start.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give The Current War...
C-
Thank you for reading.
Saturday 27 July 2019
Saturday 20 July 2019
The Lion King Review
The Lion King is directed by Jon Favreau and features the voices of Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chitwel Ejifor, Alfre Woodward, Billy Eichner, John Kani, John Oliver, Beyoncé Knowles Carter and James Earl Jones as the voice of Mufasa.
The plot is about a young lion whose destiny to be king is put in danger following a tragedy which leads to him being exiled, and years later as an adult he must find a way to take back his kingdom and his rightful place as king.
The performances are unfortunately quite poor, James Earl Jones brings proming charm and likeability to the role of Mufasa, despite playing the same character and saying almost exactly the same lines as over twenty years ago. Chitwel Ejifor tries (and fails) to bring any sense of personality beyond that of a conventional villain, and he's quite easy to ignore. Another notable performance is John Oliver as Zazu. He makes no particular effort to try and do his own take on the character, but instead spends most of the film trying way too hard to sound like the original voice actor. And it gets to the point where it becomes so obvious that's what he's doing that it just becomes distracting.
The film was written by Jeff Nathanson and what stood out to me most about the script was how everything stayed the same as the original, in a shot for shot manner. From famous scenes, to the dialogue, to the songs. All of them just about stay untouched. And the changes that are made to the film are so minimal, being only a few lines and some scenes being stretched out to meet the film's longer runtime. I just see it as a script with more copying put into to it than actual hard work and effort.
The film was shot by Caleb Deschanel, and this film does somewhat redeem itself with the visuals. Although there's no standout moment for the cinematography you can't deny that film's visuals are quite impressive - Pride Rock looks surprisingly good and has a documentary-like look to it. The animals look striking too, you can see every little detail on some of them. And the actors portraying them do try to get their facial expressions across clearly, sometimes it works, others times they just say what they're feeling but you don't see it. If things like this are going to continue, it will need some more work, but this is a good start.
The score was composed by Hans Zimmer and most of his score just feels recycled from the previous film, and the songs as mentioned before are much the same but if you listen carefully you will hear one or two modern touches that have been put in. Once again this shows a disappointing lack of effort and what makes it even more disappointing is that this is the work of a highly-regarded composer, and here he has failed where he usually succeeds.
You would think all of the things mentioned above would have diminished my experience with this film but there was one flaw that trumped all the others, the film's lack of original ideas. Now I do understand what a remake is, it's been done before and some things must and usually do remain the same. But that doesn't mean that you can't bring some ideas of your own to it. I've seen it done well and I've seen it attempted and maybe it didn't get the outcome it hoped for. I recently saw a remake that did have some of its own ideas; it didn't entirely work out in its favour, but at least it tried. With remakes I suggest that some original ideas should maybe be tried instead of avoided, just so audiences don't get a film that's a longer version of something they have already seen.
The conclusions I draw from this are: The Lion King has poor voice performances; a mostly recycled script and the lack of effort is quite evident; with minimal new dialogue and a stretched-out runtime being the only notable changes; some visuals that are quite impressive but need work done to them; a a score that feels recycled and attempts to compensate for its laziness in a way that's maybe just as bad; and worst of all, lacking in original ideas.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give The Lion King...
D
Thank you for reading.
The plot is about a young lion whose destiny to be king is put in danger following a tragedy which leads to him being exiled, and years later as an adult he must find a way to take back his kingdom and his rightful place as king.
The performances are unfortunately quite poor, James Earl Jones brings proming charm and likeability to the role of Mufasa, despite playing the same character and saying almost exactly the same lines as over twenty years ago. Chitwel Ejifor tries (and fails) to bring any sense of personality beyond that of a conventional villain, and he's quite easy to ignore. Another notable performance is John Oliver as Zazu. He makes no particular effort to try and do his own take on the character, but instead spends most of the film trying way too hard to sound like the original voice actor. And it gets to the point where it becomes so obvious that's what he's doing that it just becomes distracting.
The film was written by Jeff Nathanson and what stood out to me most about the script was how everything stayed the same as the original, in a shot for shot manner. From famous scenes, to the dialogue, to the songs. All of them just about stay untouched. And the changes that are made to the film are so minimal, being only a few lines and some scenes being stretched out to meet the film's longer runtime. I just see it as a script with more copying put into to it than actual hard work and effort.
The film was shot by Caleb Deschanel, and this film does somewhat redeem itself with the visuals. Although there's no standout moment for the cinematography you can't deny that film's visuals are quite impressive - Pride Rock looks surprisingly good and has a documentary-like look to it. The animals look striking too, you can see every little detail on some of them. And the actors portraying them do try to get their facial expressions across clearly, sometimes it works, others times they just say what they're feeling but you don't see it. If things like this are going to continue, it will need some more work, but this is a good start.
The score was composed by Hans Zimmer and most of his score just feels recycled from the previous film, and the songs as mentioned before are much the same but if you listen carefully you will hear one or two modern touches that have been put in. Once again this shows a disappointing lack of effort and what makes it even more disappointing is that this is the work of a highly-regarded composer, and here he has failed where he usually succeeds.
You would think all of the things mentioned above would have diminished my experience with this film but there was one flaw that trumped all the others, the film's lack of original ideas. Now I do understand what a remake is, it's been done before and some things must and usually do remain the same. But that doesn't mean that you can't bring some ideas of your own to it. I've seen it done well and I've seen it attempted and maybe it didn't get the outcome it hoped for. I recently saw a remake that did have some of its own ideas; it didn't entirely work out in its favour, but at least it tried. With remakes I suggest that some original ideas should maybe be tried instead of avoided, just so audiences don't get a film that's a longer version of something they have already seen.
The conclusions I draw from this are: The Lion King has poor voice performances; a mostly recycled script and the lack of effort is quite evident; with minimal new dialogue and a stretched-out runtime being the only notable changes; some visuals that are quite impressive but need work done to them; a a score that feels recycled and attempts to compensate for its laziness in a way that's maybe just as bad; and worst of all, lacking in original ideas.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give The Lion King...
D
Thank you for reading.
Monday 15 July 2019
Stuber Review
Stuber was directed by Michael Dowse and stars Kumail Nanjiani, Dave Bautista, Iko Uwais, Natalie Morales, Betty Gilpin, Jimmy Tatro, Mira Sorvino and Karen Gillan.
The film is about a dedicated but relentless detective who enlists the help of an average Uber driver when he has the chance to bring down the criminal who killed his partner. But of course difficulties occur along the way, mostly stemming from how different the two men are, and they have to overcome those differences if they are to work together so that one can do his job while maintaining the reputation that he holds quite dear.
The performances are fine, but Nanjiani and Bautista effortlessly stand out. They do play the roles in a clichéd fashion but have an undeniable chemistry and Bautista especially shows commitment to his role, with often comedic presence and at times scene-stealing charisma. Nanjina does have moments too, but beyond the characters' chemistry it felt like he was really just there to give reactions of shock to anything that was happening around him. And also adapting to one situation after another which really was only funny with him once or twice.
The film was written by Tripper Clancy and on paper feels like a very generic buddy cop film, but the script keeps everything moving at a brisk pace, with often funny dialogue and over the top action sequences. And there is at times a feeling of self awareness, of the film knowing how silly it is and not taking itself too seriously. When things get even slightly dramatic, that feeling of comedic tone is still there. I thought of the script as an interesting way to do a film that feels conventional, but all the right steps seem to have been taken to keep it from slowing down and getting boring.
The film was shot by Bobby Shore and most of the shots are fine if unmemorable. But the one shot that somewhat manages to stand out is where a can flies directly into a man's head. I feel like the objective of the shot was either shock or disgust in a darkly comedic way... or maybe it's just as simple as doing something to get a reaction out of the audience. In the end if just a reaction is its goal, then it definitely succeeds.
The score was composed by Joseph Trapanese and while it's not very memorable the film tries to make up for that with a variety of popular songs. The standout moment for the music has to be during a gunfight when a rather relaxed song is being played over the obviously intense situation, along with some rather unusual visual choices to help go along with it. To have a song that is so clearly out of place for everything else that is happening in the scene, but yet somehow feels refreshing and enjoyable, just added more to my enjoyment of it.
The one thing that lessened my enjoyment of the film would be that from very early on we know why Bautista is going after this particular criminal. But even before the main events even start, we get a pre-titles sequence showing how all of that happened. It doesn't slow anything down, but certainly could have been told to the audience through dialogue instead of a five to ten minute infodump sequence. Instead the film could have used those minutes to achieve the potential that it doesn't quite fulfil.
The conclusions I draw from this are: Stuber has good performances especially from Bautista; a conventional script that's self-aware, funny and engaging, and rarely drags; one startling shot in the cinematography which I think was maybe put in just to get a reaction from the audience; a score that fails to stand out in any way, but uses a popular song in one scene to great comedic effect; and is only flawed by spending a few minutes focusing on something that could have been done in a much simpler way.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Stuber...
B-
Thank you for reading.
The film is about a dedicated but relentless detective who enlists the help of an average Uber driver when he has the chance to bring down the criminal who killed his partner. But of course difficulties occur along the way, mostly stemming from how different the two men are, and they have to overcome those differences if they are to work together so that one can do his job while maintaining the reputation that he holds quite dear.
The performances are fine, but Nanjiani and Bautista effortlessly stand out. They do play the roles in a clichéd fashion but have an undeniable chemistry and Bautista especially shows commitment to his role, with often comedic presence and at times scene-stealing charisma. Nanjina does have moments too, but beyond the characters' chemistry it felt like he was really just there to give reactions of shock to anything that was happening around him. And also adapting to one situation after another which really was only funny with him once or twice.
The film was written by Tripper Clancy and on paper feels like a very generic buddy cop film, but the script keeps everything moving at a brisk pace, with often funny dialogue and over the top action sequences. And there is at times a feeling of self awareness, of the film knowing how silly it is and not taking itself too seriously. When things get even slightly dramatic, that feeling of comedic tone is still there. I thought of the script as an interesting way to do a film that feels conventional, but all the right steps seem to have been taken to keep it from slowing down and getting boring.
The film was shot by Bobby Shore and most of the shots are fine if unmemorable. But the one shot that somewhat manages to stand out is where a can flies directly into a man's head. I feel like the objective of the shot was either shock or disgust in a darkly comedic way... or maybe it's just as simple as doing something to get a reaction out of the audience. In the end if just a reaction is its goal, then it definitely succeeds.
The score was composed by Joseph Trapanese and while it's not very memorable the film tries to make up for that with a variety of popular songs. The standout moment for the music has to be during a gunfight when a rather relaxed song is being played over the obviously intense situation, along with some rather unusual visual choices to help go along with it. To have a song that is so clearly out of place for everything else that is happening in the scene, but yet somehow feels refreshing and enjoyable, just added more to my enjoyment of it.
The one thing that lessened my enjoyment of the film would be that from very early on we know why Bautista is going after this particular criminal. But even before the main events even start, we get a pre-titles sequence showing how all of that happened. It doesn't slow anything down, but certainly could have been told to the audience through dialogue instead of a five to ten minute infodump sequence. Instead the film could have used those minutes to achieve the potential that it doesn't quite fulfil.
The conclusions I draw from this are: Stuber has good performances especially from Bautista; a conventional script that's self-aware, funny and engaging, and rarely drags; one startling shot in the cinematography which I think was maybe put in just to get a reaction from the audience; a score that fails to stand out in any way, but uses a popular song in one scene to great comedic effect; and is only flawed by spending a few minutes focusing on something that could have been done in a much simpler way.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Stuber...
B-
Thank you for reading.
Wednesday 3 July 2019
Yesterday Review
Yesterday was directed by Danny Boyle and stars Himesh Patel, Lilly James, Kate Mackinnon and Ed Sheeran.
The film is about a struggling musician who, after being in an accident, wakes up to discover no one remembers the music of the Beatles apart from him. So, understandably, he claims their songs as his own, takes the credit and gets all the recognition - while also achieving the level of fame he has always dreamed of. But could he run the risk of being exposed as a fraud? Or worse, losing the love of his life?
The performances were fine, Patel and James both do good jobs of portraying likeable everyday people, and they do have a believable chemistry together. But they are in the end forgettable. MacKinnon seems like the film's source of comic relief, and I thought she did a very good job with her character, she was funny and kept the film entertaining when things started to slow down, and through it was a small part she certainly made the most of it. Lastly Sheeran's work in the film didn't seem as much like a performance as a marketing ploy to get younger audiences in. And when he is on screen he just shows up, says a few lines that don't advance the plot, then goes away. And it's like that with Sheeran every few minutes for the whole runtime.
The film was written by Richard Curtis and it's clear that he has written it with the intention of it being a romantic comedy with a success story and a twist to give it some distinction from his previous work. There are some moments where that has slightly paid off, but despite its interesting concept and ambitions, it's very predictable after a while, there is nothing you don't see coming, and it just gets tiresome as you wait in vain for a truly interesting idea to reach its full potential.
The film was shot by Christopher Ross and there are some noteworthy moments, one being a surprising overuse of Dutch angles that felt out of place in a romantic comedy. Those kinds of angles are usually used in action movies to give the viewer a feeling of unease. I also thought it was somewhat interesting that while the main character is struggling to remember Beatles lyrics, we are shown an exact image of what it is he is saying. And on a slightly negative note, the blackout sequence which sets up the film's main events (Patel going slowly through the blackness) feel like nothing more than a recycled, and less impressive, version of a similar sequence from the 2017 horror film, Get Out. I doubt that it was anyone's intention to make the scenes similar, but when you look at the two, it's hard not to notice.
The music was composed by Daniel Pemberton, and unfortunately it didn't stand out to me at all. I was more concerned with what would happen with the Beatles songs. Firstly, Patel manages to sing the songs moderately well, but there's one very jarring alteration made to one of the songs that just comes off as desperation. It's as if someone had no idea what to do with all the rights to all of this music so they ended up doing the first thing they could think of, but without actually thinking it through.
The one flaw that really damaged my experience with this film, is that in the world where the film takes place, where the Beatles never existed, there are moments where it's mentioned in passing that several other familiar things don't exist either. I think this movie would have been far more interesting had this aspect been explored further, if there had been several things taken out of existence instead of just one. I certainly feel like that was the even better film trying to get out of this one.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Yesterday has average performances; an ambitious but predictable script; some interesting ideas in the cinematography, plus one shot that seems recycled from another film; an unmemorable score with unwarranted alterations made to beloved songs; and a flaw that if it had proper attention paid to it, perhaps could have been used productively to make a better film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Yesterday...
C
Thank you for reading.
The film is about a struggling musician who, after being in an accident, wakes up to discover no one remembers the music of the Beatles apart from him. So, understandably, he claims their songs as his own, takes the credit and gets all the recognition - while also achieving the level of fame he has always dreamed of. But could he run the risk of being exposed as a fraud? Or worse, losing the love of his life?
The performances were fine, Patel and James both do good jobs of portraying likeable everyday people, and they do have a believable chemistry together. But they are in the end forgettable. MacKinnon seems like the film's source of comic relief, and I thought she did a very good job with her character, she was funny and kept the film entertaining when things started to slow down, and through it was a small part she certainly made the most of it. Lastly Sheeran's work in the film didn't seem as much like a performance as a marketing ploy to get younger audiences in. And when he is on screen he just shows up, says a few lines that don't advance the plot, then goes away. And it's like that with Sheeran every few minutes for the whole runtime.
The film was written by Richard Curtis and it's clear that he has written it with the intention of it being a romantic comedy with a success story and a twist to give it some distinction from his previous work. There are some moments where that has slightly paid off, but despite its interesting concept and ambitions, it's very predictable after a while, there is nothing you don't see coming, and it just gets tiresome as you wait in vain for a truly interesting idea to reach its full potential.
The film was shot by Christopher Ross and there are some noteworthy moments, one being a surprising overuse of Dutch angles that felt out of place in a romantic comedy. Those kinds of angles are usually used in action movies to give the viewer a feeling of unease. I also thought it was somewhat interesting that while the main character is struggling to remember Beatles lyrics, we are shown an exact image of what it is he is saying. And on a slightly negative note, the blackout sequence which sets up the film's main events (Patel going slowly through the blackness) feel like nothing more than a recycled, and less impressive, version of a similar sequence from the 2017 horror film, Get Out. I doubt that it was anyone's intention to make the scenes similar, but when you look at the two, it's hard not to notice.
The music was composed by Daniel Pemberton, and unfortunately it didn't stand out to me at all. I was more concerned with what would happen with the Beatles songs. Firstly, Patel manages to sing the songs moderately well, but there's one very jarring alteration made to one of the songs that just comes off as desperation. It's as if someone had no idea what to do with all the rights to all of this music so they ended up doing the first thing they could think of, but without actually thinking it through.
The one flaw that really damaged my experience with this film, is that in the world where the film takes place, where the Beatles never existed, there are moments where it's mentioned in passing that several other familiar things don't exist either. I think this movie would have been far more interesting had this aspect been explored further, if there had been several things taken out of existence instead of just one. I certainly feel like that was the even better film trying to get out of this one.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Yesterday has average performances; an ambitious but predictable script; some interesting ideas in the cinematography, plus one shot that seems recycled from another film; an unmemorable score with unwarranted alterations made to beloved songs; and a flaw that if it had proper attention paid to it, perhaps could have been used productively to make a better film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Yesterday...
C
Thank you for reading.
Spider-Man:Far From Home Review
Spider-Man: Far From Home was directed by Jon Watts and stars Tom Holland, Samuel L Jackson, Zendaya, Cobie Smulders, Jon Favreau, Marisa Tomei and Jake Gyllenhaal.
The plot of this film revolves around Peter Parker and his friends as they take a trip around Europe, which is interrupted when Nick Fury shows up to request Parker's help with a new threat that has emerged. He teams up with a man named Mysterio, and on the side has to figure out how to fully take on his superhero duties, while also making time for his real life.
The performances have good but varying results. Tom Holland once again demonstrates how well he can play Peter Parker/Spider-Man by taking the awkward nerdy aspects of the character and using them to great comedic effect, and when he has to portray the character in a more serious light, he doesn't overplay it, or do it in a way that ruins the film's relatively light-hearted tone.
Zendaya as MJ was quite amusing, her scenes with Holland are definitely a highlight of the film and she proves herself to be a worthy addition to the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Mysterio with a lot of charisma, and he does have some genuine chemistry with Holland; and Samuel L Jackson plays Nick Fury with the signature likeability that he always brings to his roles.
The film was written by Chris McKenna and Eric Sommers, and while their script has been written with the same emphasis on high-school life and humour as the previous instalment, what stood out to me was how the script was able to take almost anything and find a way to make it entertaining - it could be a small situation someone has to get out, or a big battle scene, or even something as simple as teenage drama. All of this was very engaging, consistently enjoyable, and rarely felt like it dragged.
The film was shot by Matthew J Lloyd and he does have some noteworthy work in the film. There's a very hallucinogenic sequence which I found interesting to look at as it felt like an old idea was being tried in a different way in a superhero film. Some of the action and stunts are shot from some unusual, if tired, angles.
The score was composed by Michael Giacchino it appears to be some kind of tribute to the other Spider-Man scores. I felt he maybe achieved his aim once, and for the rest of the film the score thinks it's something it's not; and the music rarely shines because of that. The only other notable moment that is music-related is when Parker is in a bar and a song is playing in the background and the lyrics are (perhaps) alluding to something that has been said many times in the film. If it was intentional, well done. If not, then it was just a happy accident that worked in the music's favour.
There are actually several disappointments in this film for me, one being the villain's motivations - they just seem petty and although I could understand where he was coming from with them, when your motives are that bad, you're going to be hard to feel sympathy for. Next we have the villain's plan: this is a film that to some extent knows how silly it is, and has fun with that most of the time, but the villain's plan and how it gets carried out just eventually becomes over-complicated and too frustrating to follow. And lastly, the film gets far too overindulgent with the fact that many key characters die in a film set in the same cinematic universe as this one. Especially during the first 20 minutes when we just can't escape the face of one of the characters who died, it goes from being an interesting cross-reference to being annoyingly overindulgent.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Spider-Man: Far From Home has enjoyable performances, a consistently entertaining script, some interesting visuals and angles in the cinematography, and a score that achieves its aim then proceeds to be something it is not. It has a villain with petty motivations, a too-complicated plan, and overindulges in areas that are best left alone.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Spider-Man: Far From Home...
B-
Thank you for reading.
The plot of this film revolves around Peter Parker and his friends as they take a trip around Europe, which is interrupted when Nick Fury shows up to request Parker's help with a new threat that has emerged. He teams up with a man named Mysterio, and on the side has to figure out how to fully take on his superhero duties, while also making time for his real life.
The performances have good but varying results. Tom Holland once again demonstrates how well he can play Peter Parker/Spider-Man by taking the awkward nerdy aspects of the character and using them to great comedic effect, and when he has to portray the character in a more serious light, he doesn't overplay it, or do it in a way that ruins the film's relatively light-hearted tone.
Zendaya as MJ was quite amusing, her scenes with Holland are definitely a highlight of the film and she proves herself to be a worthy addition to the cast. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Mysterio with a lot of charisma, and he does have some genuine chemistry with Holland; and Samuel L Jackson plays Nick Fury with the signature likeability that he always brings to his roles.
The film was written by Chris McKenna and Eric Sommers, and while their script has been written with the same emphasis on high-school life and humour as the previous instalment, what stood out to me was how the script was able to take almost anything and find a way to make it entertaining - it could be a small situation someone has to get out, or a big battle scene, or even something as simple as teenage drama. All of this was very engaging, consistently enjoyable, and rarely felt like it dragged.
The film was shot by Matthew J Lloyd and he does have some noteworthy work in the film. There's a very hallucinogenic sequence which I found interesting to look at as it felt like an old idea was being tried in a different way in a superhero film. Some of the action and stunts are shot from some unusual, if tired, angles.
The score was composed by Michael Giacchino it appears to be some kind of tribute to the other Spider-Man scores. I felt he maybe achieved his aim once, and for the rest of the film the score thinks it's something it's not; and the music rarely shines because of that. The only other notable moment that is music-related is when Parker is in a bar and a song is playing in the background and the lyrics are (perhaps) alluding to something that has been said many times in the film. If it was intentional, well done. If not, then it was just a happy accident that worked in the music's favour.
There are actually several disappointments in this film for me, one being the villain's motivations - they just seem petty and although I could understand where he was coming from with them, when your motives are that bad, you're going to be hard to feel sympathy for. Next we have the villain's plan: this is a film that to some extent knows how silly it is, and has fun with that most of the time, but the villain's plan and how it gets carried out just eventually becomes over-complicated and too frustrating to follow. And lastly, the film gets far too overindulgent with the fact that many key characters die in a film set in the same cinematic universe as this one. Especially during the first 20 minutes when we just can't escape the face of one of the characters who died, it goes from being an interesting cross-reference to being annoyingly overindulgent.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Spider-Man: Far From Home has enjoyable performances, a consistently entertaining script, some interesting visuals and angles in the cinematography, and a score that achieves its aim then proceeds to be something it is not. It has a villain with petty motivations, a too-complicated plan, and overindulges in areas that are best left alone.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Spider-Man: Far From Home...
B-
Thank you for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)