J.J Abrams returns to finish what he started with Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. In true finale fashion, this film sees Finn and Rey (John Boyega and Daisy Ridley) and what little remains of the resistance, prepare to fight The First Order and Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), one last time.
In terms of cast, 'ensemble' feels a bit of an understatement. On one side (excluding those mentioned above) we have the likes of Oscar Isaac, Domhnall Gleeson and Richard E Grant. Then on the other side you have Antony Daniels as C-3PO, Joonas Suotamo taking over Chewbacca, Jimmy Vee as R2-D2 and Billy Dee Williams - and Carrie Fisher, whose presence in the film, despite obvious circumstances, never seems distracting. Let's also not forget the much-anticipated and advertised return of Ian MacDiarmid as Emperor Palatine.
So what do they all bring to this film through their performances? Well, most just seem to settle for what worked before, they're likeable enough and you feel you can root for them. Most of them don't get that much screen time and perhaps their talents are being neglected. But I do think that Ridley and Driver work very well together and demonstrate their capabilities as dramatic actors with great credibility and potential. MacDiarmid, after 14 years of not playing the part, effortlessly falls back into the role. He may just be doing more of the same, but it worked back then, so why shouldn't it work now?
Moving on to the script by Abrams and Chris Terrio, it's everything you would expect from a climactic Star Wars film. There's plenty of action with lightsabre fights, lasers and spaceships, that are all tailored to feel very exciting and crowd-pleasing. But it does have problematic moments that can be found in some of the directions the characters go in, as they feel very sudden and not properly built up. Where the story chooses to pick up with some of these characters could have done with some more explaining, rather than just throwing us into the story with them in some random place with little or no information as to what happened before.
I have very little to say about Dan Mendel's cinematography, except for maybe some of the angles he tries out during any scenes involving flying spaceships, even if they come off as a cheap way to make the scene feel more exciting. A brief note on the effects by Industrial Light and Magic who provide nothing ground-breaking in the special effects but it's still decent work.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone to know that the most memorable parts of the score by John Williams are when he plays his most iconic pieces of Star Wars music. It would be easy for me to look down on this and put it down to a lack of inspiration, but in this case I don't think I really expected anything more than what I got.
Moving on to the flaws of the film, there are two that this film cant seem to shake- it's very repetitive and it drags. Even with a two hour and twenty-two minute runtime, and constant action onscreen, the film has quite a number of scenes that go for far too long, and some scenes feel like exact re-treads of scenes from earlier in this film and the two films that preceded it. The dialogue between the characters does change slightly, but what the scene is trying to convey stays the same. We have so many repeats of particular scenes that by the time all is revealed, it's hard to care.
So The Rise Of Skywalker has brought the saga to an end with good if mixed results. There are good performances from Ridley and Driver, lots of action, but questionable directions taken with the characters lack of explanations. But the film is flawed in scenes dragging on for too long and being far too repetitive. This may not be the grand finale to a beloved saga that the world was hoping for, but it's very clear to see that with a little luck, Star Wars can still be saved and have a future.
C+
Thank you for reading.
Saturday 21 December 2019
Saturday 7 December 2019
Ford Vs Ferrari Review
Director James Mangold delves into the world of motor racing with Ford v Ferrari (or Le Mans 66, depending on where you are in the world). This film is set in the 1960s and follows automotive engineer Carrol Shelby (Matt Damon) and British racing driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale) as they work together to create a car that they hope will win against Ferrari in an upcoming race. But as they work they also have to deal with interference from the corporate side of things, the limitations of the laws of physics and their own personal demons if anything is to be accomplished.
Damon has a clear understanding of the kind of character he is supposed to be playing but despite the effort he brings to his role he seems rather one-note and fails to give the same level of performance he has brought to some of his other leading roles. In the supporting roles we have the likes of Jon Bernthal, Noah Jupe and Tracy Letts who all play their parts well enough but are mostly as one-note as Damon, with Bernthal being the exception largely due to his distinctive voice.
Christian Bale seems to jump between two approaches to his part; on the one hand he brings his traditional immersion into the role which, for a while, appears to be working, complete with a strong English accent. At other times he goes for exaggeration, in a comedic or eccentric way, which makes it a little hard to take him seriously. But of course playing eccentrics has always been one of Bale's strengths.
The script comes to us from Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth and Jason Keller, and they have taken the time to flesh out the core characters of the story, explore the drama going on in Miles's family, the friction going in the warring car companies and of course have fitted in a lot of racing too. But its strongest point is its characterisations of real people. Some of the characters are very easy to like and to root for, while others may seem at first to be be rather one sided, but on a closer look their viewpoints can be readily understood as well.
The cinematography by Phedon Papamichael lacks memorable shots but compensates for that with a pleasing aesthetic that can especially be seen in the racing sequences, possessing a feeling of authenticity and intensity.
As to the score (by Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders) it's fairly forgettable but with the film being set in the 1960s it comes with a set of songs from that time, of which I Put A Spell On You stood out most for me.
There are two (related) defects with the film, firstly at two hours and thirty-two minutes it's simply too long. Ten to fifteen minutes could be trimmed without anything significant being lost. Also, the first act drags woefully as the main characters are introduced and the plot gets underway. These things have to be done but here they are executed painfully slowly.
Here is how I view Ford v Ferrari: it's got a competent but one-note performance from Matt Damon as well as several of the supporting cast; Christian Bale is good but uneven; a script that manages to balance a lot of ideas, but succeeds best with developing the characters; and a needlessly long running time and a very slow first act.
C
Thank you for reading.
Damon has a clear understanding of the kind of character he is supposed to be playing but despite the effort he brings to his role he seems rather one-note and fails to give the same level of performance he has brought to some of his other leading roles. In the supporting roles we have the likes of Jon Bernthal, Noah Jupe and Tracy Letts who all play their parts well enough but are mostly as one-note as Damon, with Bernthal being the exception largely due to his distinctive voice.
Christian Bale seems to jump between two approaches to his part; on the one hand he brings his traditional immersion into the role which, for a while, appears to be working, complete with a strong English accent. At other times he goes for exaggeration, in a comedic or eccentric way, which makes it a little hard to take him seriously. But of course playing eccentrics has always been one of Bale's strengths.
The script comes to us from Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth and Jason Keller, and they have taken the time to flesh out the core characters of the story, explore the drama going on in Miles's family, the friction going in the warring car companies and of course have fitted in a lot of racing too. But its strongest point is its characterisations of real people. Some of the characters are very easy to like and to root for, while others may seem at first to be be rather one sided, but on a closer look their viewpoints can be readily understood as well.
The cinematography by Phedon Papamichael lacks memorable shots but compensates for that with a pleasing aesthetic that can especially be seen in the racing sequences, possessing a feeling of authenticity and intensity.
As to the score (by Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders) it's fairly forgettable but with the film being set in the 1960s it comes with a set of songs from that time, of which I Put A Spell On You stood out most for me.
There are two (related) defects with the film, firstly at two hours and thirty-two minutes it's simply too long. Ten to fifteen minutes could be trimmed without anything significant being lost. Also, the first act drags woefully as the main characters are introduced and the plot gets underway. These things have to be done but here they are executed painfully slowly.
Here is how I view Ford v Ferrari: it's got a competent but one-note performance from Matt Damon as well as several of the supporting cast; Christian Bale is good but uneven; a script that manages to balance a lot of ideas, but succeeds best with developing the characters; and a needlessly long running time and a very slow first act.
C
Thank you for reading.
Sunday 1 December 2019
The Irishman Review
Martin Scorsese has made his first ever film for Netflix with The Irishman, where elderly mobster Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) recounts the story of how he went from a man who delivered meat to a very well-respected member of the Mafia. The film also delves into his relationships with his family and his mafia associates, and how he and the Mafia played a small part in some key moments in history.
As well as De Niro this film does have quite a remarkable cast. We have other Scorsese regulars like Joe Pesci and Harvey Keitel, and also the likes of Al Pacino, Stephen Graham, and in a rather unexpected turn to dramatic acting, Ray Romano. Most of these performances are passable enough - De Niro, Pesci, and Pacino manage to be charismatic and worthy of attention, but there is a constant feeling that they may just be looking to the usual movie gangster personas that they have made for themselves over the years. De Niro and Pacino in particular work quite well when it's just the two of them, with a really believable chemistry together. And despite their having been in a film together before, it's hard not to be at least half-interested in seeing these two greats act alongside each other again, which really helps given how the rest of the film is.
The script by Steve Zallian, adapted from a book called I Heard You Paint Houses, has a lot of material to get through. It's surprisingly dialogue-heavy and feels quite minimal in terms of violence, perhaps surprising given the kind of films Scorsese usually makes, especially his Mafia ones. It's maybe a bit odd why there's a sudden change of pace in an area where you would expect him to feel very much at home. Instead this film puts a greater emphasis on the characters, so that they can appear to us as fully fleshed-out human beings. This works in the film's favour, especially with some of the Mafia members as, instead of just seeing them as one-dimensional psychopaths,we see them as characters who one minute can be spending quality time with friends and family, then be off to blow up a building the next. While Scorsese may have gone minimal with the violence, I'm sure it will please someone somewhere to know the same hasn't happened with the film's liberal use of profanity - there's a lot of it.
I don't think I have much to say about Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography, except at the very start when my eyes briefly caught sight of what looked like very impressive camera work as it steadily went through a hallway taking us to the main character, and then the story could begin. Let's talk about the use of de-ageing for this film. This process has certainly been one of trial and error this year and with this film it's no different. De Niro is the one who has definitely come out best, since no matter what decade the scene is set in, he looks exactly like he actually did in that decade. But with some of the others the effort is there, but they just look like average young men.
The score is composed by Robbie Robertson, once of The Band. It tends to fade into the background compared to the more memorable songs that play throughout many scenes, mainly to enhance the setting of said scene. One or two of those songs stick in the mind but hardly any of the original score.
So far I have found some things in this film to praise, but like all films it's not without flaws. Starting with the one that people seem to be unanimous about, this film is simply too long. Three hours and twenty-seven minutes is way too long and even though this is counting the credits, without them the film is still close to three hours seventeen. And yes, I know that another film that was just over three hours long and is now the highest grossing of all time (Avengers: Endgame) did get a mainstream release back in April this year - but the difference is that film had enough to sustain its running time but I don't believe this one does.
Another flaw this film has is that most of the time it feels rather boring due to many scenes becoming very talky and dragging on for far too long. And when something slightly exciting does eventually happen, it's short-lived and soon back to boring conversations again.
The Irishman gives us good, if at times uninspired, performances from De Niro, Pacino and Pesci and the chemistry between the first two does manage to enhance their performances. We have a script that's very dialogue-heavy and minimal on violence, but chooses mainly to flesh out as characters so that they seem more like people. There is also some impressive work on the de-ageing process, especially on De Niro, and a score that is completely overshadowed by a selection of familiar hit songs from different decades. Finally the film is fatally flawed by its inordinate length, and with far too little going on to justify its runtime.
C-
Thank you for reading.
As well as De Niro this film does have quite a remarkable cast. We have other Scorsese regulars like Joe Pesci and Harvey Keitel, and also the likes of Al Pacino, Stephen Graham, and in a rather unexpected turn to dramatic acting, Ray Romano. Most of these performances are passable enough - De Niro, Pesci, and Pacino manage to be charismatic and worthy of attention, but there is a constant feeling that they may just be looking to the usual movie gangster personas that they have made for themselves over the years. De Niro and Pacino in particular work quite well when it's just the two of them, with a really believable chemistry together. And despite their having been in a film together before, it's hard not to be at least half-interested in seeing these two greats act alongside each other again, which really helps given how the rest of the film is.
The script by Steve Zallian, adapted from a book called I Heard You Paint Houses, has a lot of material to get through. It's surprisingly dialogue-heavy and feels quite minimal in terms of violence, perhaps surprising given the kind of films Scorsese usually makes, especially his Mafia ones. It's maybe a bit odd why there's a sudden change of pace in an area where you would expect him to feel very much at home. Instead this film puts a greater emphasis on the characters, so that they can appear to us as fully fleshed-out human beings. This works in the film's favour, especially with some of the Mafia members as, instead of just seeing them as one-dimensional psychopaths,we see them as characters who one minute can be spending quality time with friends and family, then be off to blow up a building the next. While Scorsese may have gone minimal with the violence, I'm sure it will please someone somewhere to know the same hasn't happened with the film's liberal use of profanity - there's a lot of it.
I don't think I have much to say about Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography, except at the very start when my eyes briefly caught sight of what looked like very impressive camera work as it steadily went through a hallway taking us to the main character, and then the story could begin. Let's talk about the use of de-ageing for this film. This process has certainly been one of trial and error this year and with this film it's no different. De Niro is the one who has definitely come out best, since no matter what decade the scene is set in, he looks exactly like he actually did in that decade. But with some of the others the effort is there, but they just look like average young men.
The score is composed by Robbie Robertson, once of The Band. It tends to fade into the background compared to the more memorable songs that play throughout many scenes, mainly to enhance the setting of said scene. One or two of those songs stick in the mind but hardly any of the original score.
So far I have found some things in this film to praise, but like all films it's not without flaws. Starting with the one that people seem to be unanimous about, this film is simply too long. Three hours and twenty-seven minutes is way too long and even though this is counting the credits, without them the film is still close to three hours seventeen. And yes, I know that another film that was just over three hours long and is now the highest grossing of all time (Avengers: Endgame) did get a mainstream release back in April this year - but the difference is that film had enough to sustain its running time but I don't believe this one does.
Another flaw this film has is that most of the time it feels rather boring due to many scenes becoming very talky and dragging on for far too long. And when something slightly exciting does eventually happen, it's short-lived and soon back to boring conversations again.
The Irishman gives us good, if at times uninspired, performances from De Niro, Pacino and Pesci and the chemistry between the first two does manage to enhance their performances. We have a script that's very dialogue-heavy and minimal on violence, but chooses mainly to flesh out as characters so that they seem more like people. There is also some impressive work on the de-ageing process, especially on De Niro, and a score that is completely overshadowed by a selection of familiar hit songs from different decades. Finally the film is fatally flawed by its inordinate length, and with far too little going on to justify its runtime.
C-
Thank you for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)