Quentin Tarantino is back with Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, his ninth feature film, which of course features a huge ensemble cast that includes Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Al Pacino, and countless others.
The film takes place over three days in 1960s Los Angeles, and is about how a TV actor and his stuntman are struggling hard to stay relevant, and how other film stars and the people around them also navigate the world of the film industry. And of course we also have Charles Manson and his cult as a kind of backdrop.
The cast features a host of talent like the names above plus many more including some Tarantino regulars. All try to make the best of what they're given but it doesn't all work as well as it should. DiCaprio is good in his role, but fails to make much impact. Robbie unfortunately suffers a similar fate, despite playing a person who is crucial to the Charles Manson story. The well-recognised talents of Al Pacino are wasted and in the few scenes he's in, he feels reduced to nothing more than a presence. Brad Pitt as the stunt double was the only performance in the film I could call believable. He brought likeability and a good sense of humour to his role, and managed to somewhat save DiCaprio's performance by a small amount by demonstrating a believable chemistry with him.
This is of course written by Tarantino and one would anticipate that it's the kind of film he should have no problem with. He can pay tribute to old cinema, he can have moments where we see films within a film based on the exploitation genre. And of course he can have all the graphic violence and heavy profanity he wants.
But I take no pleasure in saying that mainly due to the writing, this feels less like a Tarantino film and more like a 1960s period drama with a style that strongly tries to resemble Tarantino. One of the script's faults is that it's full of scenes with very little to say that's interesting, scenes that go on for far too long that need to either be shortened or have worthwhile dialogue in them. I was just left waiting for something that was going to grab my attention and invest me in the plot, and for a long while, there was nothing that kept my interest.
Another failure of the script is that the characters are not that interesting or likeable. Only one character meets those criteria and I think it's fairly easy to see why. Also with Manson there were a whole range of possibilities that were never explored, such as what happened with Steve McQueen on the night of the killings? I think someone like Tarantino really could have had fun with this. Then there's Manson himself, who shows up once and we never really see him again. And it's not even until near the end of the film, during an encounter with the Manson family, that the film finally begins to look like a Tarantino film. Were those final moments enjoyable? Yes. Will it help the experience it you were bored by the rest of the film? Probably not.
Like many of Tarantino's films, this one has a very retro soundtrack, which I feel is intended to make the 1960s setting all the more credible. Here we have musicians like Aretha Franklin, Deep Purple, The Rolling Stones and The Mamas and The Papas. A well-chosen soundtrack with some very well-liked songs. But I suspect that Tarantino knew about last year's film Bad Times at the El Royale. Not just for the fact that it was also set in the 1960s and had a more charismatic Manson rip-off played by Chris Hemsworth. But the fact that the same song plays in both films when cult-related things start to happen in the film's final minutes. I know it's a small detail, but when you notice that similarity as quickly as I did, it's hard not to raise an eyebrow. There is also another song that is played in both this film and El Royale, but the scences in which they are played are slightly different, so I will be merciful and overlook it.
I do respect Tarantino for trying something that feels so far out of his comfort zone, and his passion for the project is clear. But here we have wasted performances by hugely talented actors where only one really stands out, overlong scenes filled with uninteresting characters and equally boring dialogue. Great potential wasted throughout. And a soundtrack which, while impressive, does have one part that does seem a bit recycled from another film.
And with that, I give Once Upon A Time In Hollywood...
C
Thank you for reading.
Thursday 15 August 2019
Saturday 10 August 2019
Blinded By The Light Review
Blinded by The Light was directed by Gurinder Chadha and stars Vivek Kalra, Hayley Atwell, Rob Brydon, Kulvinder Ghir, Neil Williams, Dean-Charles Chapman and Aaron Phagura.
The plot revolves around a teenager who writes poetry as a way of dealing with the very difficualt life around him. But his life changes when through a classmate he is introducued to the music of Bruce Springsteen. And through the music he finds a way to express himself in his own voice and maybe even find a way of achieving his dreams.
The performances were fine and many of the actors were clearly invested in the film. But all the characters being portrayed all felt either clichéd or exaggerated in some scenes. And despite the best efforts of lead actor Viveik Karla as Javid, although he does have moments where he shows great potential he fails to use that potential to enrich his performance. I instead we are left with what feels like a standard likeability, common to the protagonists of this genre of films. I do think there is talent here, it just not being put to good use.
The film was written by Paul Mayeda Burges, Gurinder Chada and Sarfeaz Manoor. They succeed in making the film feel like a success story with a slightly musical twist, told from an unusual point of view. But they do miss the opportunity to address things that might have made their film a bit more interesting and noteworthy, and when these things are given some attention it feels like a subplot with minimal effort put in. The script is far from perfect, it understands its basic ideas. But if it's going to have any kind of subplot that relates to the main plot in any way, it should at least have the decency to seem equally committed to both.
The film was shot by Ben Smithard, and while most of the shots are nothing noteworthy there was one visual choice that stood out to me, and that was when Javid is listening to songs on his Walkman and the lyrics sometimes appear on-screen. But some of them are singled out and I thought this was an interesting way to point out which words are supposed to mean something of importance to this character.
The score was composed by A.R. Rahman. Unfortunately while I'm sure his score was of a high standard, It was hard for me to take any notice of it, most likely due to its being overshadowed by the constant use of popular eighties songs - not just those of Bruce Springsteen, but bands like Pet Shop Boys, and Mental As Anything also get songs played. I think most of them just help to make the 80s setting seem authentic. This is all very well but the downside that Springsteen gets less attention, which is unfortunate given how much of a role his music plays in the film. The use of all these songs from this particular period just takes your attention away from what might actually be a very good score.
The one flaw that affected my enjoyment of this film was that it felt like it went on for far too long, there were things that maybe were important to the plot but chose to get to them in a very slow paced fashion. It also doesn't help that there's one scene in a club that just comes off as needless and a way to fill up the nearly two hour runtime. And by the time the film was almost over, I had very little attention left for it.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Blinded By The Light has fine performances, with potential evident in its lead; a script that achieves its core aims but dismisses the opportunity to address subjects that might make it a bit more interesting; no standout shots in the cinematography, but one interesting visual choice; and a score that is sadly overshadowed by a constant of use of eighties songs by artists other than the intended subject of the film; and is seriously flawed in being too long and trying to justify its length with scenes that don't advance any aspects of the film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Blinded By The Light...
C-
Thank You For Reading.
The plot revolves around a teenager who writes poetry as a way of dealing with the very difficualt life around him. But his life changes when through a classmate he is introducued to the music of Bruce Springsteen. And through the music he finds a way to express himself in his own voice and maybe even find a way of achieving his dreams.
The performances were fine and many of the actors were clearly invested in the film. But all the characters being portrayed all felt either clichéd or exaggerated in some scenes. And despite the best efforts of lead actor Viveik Karla as Javid, although he does have moments where he shows great potential he fails to use that potential to enrich his performance. I instead we are left with what feels like a standard likeability, common to the protagonists of this genre of films. I do think there is talent here, it just not being put to good use.
The film was written by Paul Mayeda Burges, Gurinder Chada and Sarfeaz Manoor. They succeed in making the film feel like a success story with a slightly musical twist, told from an unusual point of view. But they do miss the opportunity to address things that might have made their film a bit more interesting and noteworthy, and when these things are given some attention it feels like a subplot with minimal effort put in. The script is far from perfect, it understands its basic ideas. But if it's going to have any kind of subplot that relates to the main plot in any way, it should at least have the decency to seem equally committed to both.
The film was shot by Ben Smithard, and while most of the shots are nothing noteworthy there was one visual choice that stood out to me, and that was when Javid is listening to songs on his Walkman and the lyrics sometimes appear on-screen. But some of them are singled out and I thought this was an interesting way to point out which words are supposed to mean something of importance to this character.
The score was composed by A.R. Rahman. Unfortunately while I'm sure his score was of a high standard, It was hard for me to take any notice of it, most likely due to its being overshadowed by the constant use of popular eighties songs - not just those of Bruce Springsteen, but bands like Pet Shop Boys, and Mental As Anything also get songs played. I think most of them just help to make the 80s setting seem authentic. This is all very well but the downside that Springsteen gets less attention, which is unfortunate given how much of a role his music plays in the film. The use of all these songs from this particular period just takes your attention away from what might actually be a very good score.
The one flaw that affected my enjoyment of this film was that it felt like it went on for far too long, there were things that maybe were important to the plot but chose to get to them in a very slow paced fashion. It also doesn't help that there's one scene in a club that just comes off as needless and a way to fill up the nearly two hour runtime. And by the time the film was almost over, I had very little attention left for it.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Blinded By The Light has fine performances, with potential evident in its lead; a script that achieves its core aims but dismisses the opportunity to address subjects that might make it a bit more interesting; no standout shots in the cinematography, but one interesting visual choice; and a score that is sadly overshadowed by a constant of use of eighties songs by artists other than the intended subject of the film; and is seriously flawed in being too long and trying to justify its length with scenes that don't advance any aspects of the film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Blinded By The Light...
C-
Thank You For Reading.
Saturday 3 August 2019
Hobbs And Shaw Review
Hobbs And Shaw was directed by David Leitch and stars Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Idris Elba, Vanessa Kirby and Helen Mirren.
The plot concerns the theft of a virus by a cybernetically-enhanced terrorist, and with very little options left, former FBI agent Luke Hobbs and Deckard Shaw are forced to team up to try and put a stop to the plans of a seemingly unstoppable villain.
The performances are good but unfortunately do not reach their full potential, Johnson and Statham play their characters well, but the chemistry shift from understandably hostile to acting like friends happens so abruptly that it lacks believability and just feels unnatural. Idris Elba unfortunately gives a very one-note performance that's quite clichéd and lacks in range and as a whole feels like a waste for someone with Elba's talents.
The film was written by Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce and it's very clear from their script that they understand what this film is. There's humorous dialogue between characters, multiple car chases and over the top action scenes. But what stood out to me about the script was the great amount of effort put in to flesh out some of the story's main characters. It gives them interesting reasons for doing what they do, and sheds light on some of their unexplored pasts. I would say that this script keeps what the fans love but does go in some slightly unexpected directions that for the most part work in its favour.
The film was shot by Jonathan Sela. While the shots are unremarkable, if any of them are going to be considered noteworthy, I would have to go with the ones that pan across a country landscape, as it's a relatively nice look at many different locations and acts as an effective backdrop for anything that is about to occur in the film. There's also a somewhat amusing visual sequence at the beginning where we see the morning routines of the two leading characters side by side. I thought it was amusing in the moment, but slipped my mind quite easily.
The score was composed by Tyler Bates, and it's easily forgettable with a heavy use of electronic music being the only thing that stands out. There are also a few popular songs that maybe fit well with the film's tone but failed to leave a lasting impression on me.
The one flaw that severely damaged my experience with this film would be its very apparent pacing issues. Especially in the first act, while the audience is waiting for the main story to get underway, the build-up (while mildly entertaining) is just really slowly paced and parts of it need to be cut. And the climactic fight at end is also a perfect example of this film's pacing issues.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Hobbs and Shaw has good performances but rushed character chemistry; a talented but wasted actor playing the villain; a good script that sticks to what fans of this franchise love, but also has some ideas of its own that it explores; some nice panning shots across landscapes; a score that's only made memorable by the heavy use of electronic music; and is severely flawed by inexcusable pacing issues that occur more than once and make the film feel longer than it actually is.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, im going to give Hobbs and Shaw...
C+
Thank you for reading.
The plot concerns the theft of a virus by a cybernetically-enhanced terrorist, and with very little options left, former FBI agent Luke Hobbs and Deckard Shaw are forced to team up to try and put a stop to the plans of a seemingly unstoppable villain.
The performances are good but unfortunately do not reach their full potential, Johnson and Statham play their characters well, but the chemistry shift from understandably hostile to acting like friends happens so abruptly that it lacks believability and just feels unnatural. Idris Elba unfortunately gives a very one-note performance that's quite clichéd and lacks in range and as a whole feels like a waste for someone with Elba's talents.
The film was written by Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce and it's very clear from their script that they understand what this film is. There's humorous dialogue between characters, multiple car chases and over the top action scenes. But what stood out to me about the script was the great amount of effort put in to flesh out some of the story's main characters. It gives them interesting reasons for doing what they do, and sheds light on some of their unexplored pasts. I would say that this script keeps what the fans love but does go in some slightly unexpected directions that for the most part work in its favour.
The film was shot by Jonathan Sela. While the shots are unremarkable, if any of them are going to be considered noteworthy, I would have to go with the ones that pan across a country landscape, as it's a relatively nice look at many different locations and acts as an effective backdrop for anything that is about to occur in the film. There's also a somewhat amusing visual sequence at the beginning where we see the morning routines of the two leading characters side by side. I thought it was amusing in the moment, but slipped my mind quite easily.
The score was composed by Tyler Bates, and it's easily forgettable with a heavy use of electronic music being the only thing that stands out. There are also a few popular songs that maybe fit well with the film's tone but failed to leave a lasting impression on me.
The one flaw that severely damaged my experience with this film would be its very apparent pacing issues. Especially in the first act, while the audience is waiting for the main story to get underway, the build-up (while mildly entertaining) is just really slowly paced and parts of it need to be cut. And the climactic fight at end is also a perfect example of this film's pacing issues.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Hobbs and Shaw has good performances but rushed character chemistry; a talented but wasted actor playing the villain; a good script that sticks to what fans of this franchise love, but also has some ideas of its own that it explores; some nice panning shots across landscapes; a score that's only made memorable by the heavy use of electronic music; and is severely flawed by inexcusable pacing issues that occur more than once and make the film feel longer than it actually is.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, im going to give Hobbs and Shaw...
C+
Thank you for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)