Pokémon - Detective Pikachu is directed by Rob Letterman and stars Justice Smith, Kathryn Newton, Suki Waterhouse, Omar Chaparro, Chris Geere, Ken Watanabe and Bill Nighy. And of course Ryan Reynolds provides the voice of Pikachu. And I would like to consider this movie a video game adaptation, instead of an anime adaptation.
The film is about a young man and former Pokémon trainer who travels to a place called Rhyme City to look for his detective father who has disappeared. Eventually he encounters Pikachu and the two decide to go looking for the missing detective together.
The performances are all passable but it is Reynolds as Pikachu who stands out among them. Although he plays the part in a very one note way, he tries to get the most humour and likeability out of every line he is given and is surprisingly good at being emotional when he needs to be. I especially thought that was impressive since his character isn't exactly the emotional type.
The film was written by Rob Letterman, Derek Connolly, Dan Hernandez and Benji Samit. My thoughts going in were that this film was going to be some kind of detective film/ Pokémon hybrid, and I feel I was right. Those two things are balanced out quite well, it alternates a few minutes as a Pokémon film with a few minutes as a detective film. An issue I did have with the script was that the human characters were rather uninteresting. In the end this script is just average, it's got a fair share of good and a fair share of bad to it.
The film was shot by John Mathieson. I would say the shots I was most impressed with were those that blended the CGI Pokémon into signature noir cinema shots. Examples include, the well-lit noir street, a character being questioned under a light bulb, and a shot of an unidentifiable person standing in the shadows. What I liked about them was that the Pokémon characters blended into the shot quite naturally and never at any point felt like they were out of place.
The score was composed by Henry Jackman, and the problem with it is that nothing stands out, there are maybe a few moments that sound noteworthy when you hear them at the time, but once that is over, you realise just how easily forgettable it actually is.
Here is the one major flaw with this film: it feels over-reliant on the property that it is based on. I have heard of plenty of movies based on popular franchises where you don't have to be a fan to enjoy them. This film is not one of them; there is very little for non-Pokémon fans to enjoy here. While I do understand who the film's core audience is, and clearly the film does too, if you have never bothered with Pokémon in your life, don't let this be your introduction.
I also found the final twist to be very hard to take seriously. There is definitely a simpler way to carry out the twist ending, but the way this film has chosen to do it just had me thinking in the end, what?
In conclusion, Pokémon - Detective Pikachu has good performances and a well-balanced but average script. Some interesting visuals are to be found in the cinematography, and a score that sounds good at the time but is ultimately forgettable. Plus, the film is flawed in relying too much on the property it is based on and a twist ending which just left me confused. I will emphasise what I said before - don't let this be your introduction to Pokémon.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, im going to give Pokémon Detective Pikachu...
C
Thank you for reading.
Monday, 13 May 2019
Monday, 6 May 2019
Pet Sematary Review
Pet Sematary is directed by Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer and stars Jason Clarke, Amy Semeniz and John Lithgow and of course is based on the best-selling book by Stephen King.
This film follows a family of four who move to the countryside for a fresh start, but very odd things start to happen to them once they find out that part of their property is a pet cemetery.
For performances, no one here is bad and Jason Clarke as Dr Creed is especially good. He plays a man who is one hundred percent sceptic, so when all kinds of strange things start to happen he has to question his beliefs. And we see him give a very attention-grabbing performance as an everyday man slowly descending into madness.
The film was scripted by Jeff Buhler and of course he has adapted his script from Stephen King's book. It's full of all the usual horror clichés, from jump-scares to overly intense scenes and not forgetting horror-movie music stings to go along with some of the jump scares. I have not read the book, but from what I know about the source material all the key characters mostly transition faithfully from page to screen. There were some liberties taken, but more about that later.
The film was shot by Laurie Rose. I was satisfied with the cinematography for most of the runtime, but what struck me the most were without doubt the shots of the cemetery at night. They create an unsettling feeling and atmosphere in the viewer. And then you start to wonder, is something going to happen out here...?
The score was composed by Christopher Young, and he's done an average job of it. As mentioned before he uses horror music stings many times, but the standout moment for the score takes place in the middle of the movie during the funeral scene. Just by the sound of the score being played in the background, with not a single word being said, we can feel the grief being experienced by everyone in the scene.
The flaws which I think diminished the experience a bit for me were as follows. In an attempt to (I imagine) stay faithful to the source material as much as possible, the movie features a recreation of the novel's most famous death scene. It plays out almost in exactly the same way as it does in the book, except with one very notable difference. A difference I'm not even sure was required because up to a point, the outcomes of both situations remain the same so I don't believe it was an improvement.
Another flaw I found with the film is that I don't feel it's really a Stephen King adaptation. I think he is best known for memorable plots and characters, whereas this feels more like an above average, but fairly standard horror thriller. While it keeps your interest and is an intriguing mystery with a well-rounded group of characters, it doesn't say 'Stephen King' to me.
The conclusion I draw from this is that Pet Sematary has good performances, a cliched but still satisfactory script, and a score that works when the moment is right.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Pet Sematary
B-.
Thank you for reading.
This film follows a family of four who move to the countryside for a fresh start, but very odd things start to happen to them once they find out that part of their property is a pet cemetery.
For performances, no one here is bad and Jason Clarke as Dr Creed is especially good. He plays a man who is one hundred percent sceptic, so when all kinds of strange things start to happen he has to question his beliefs. And we see him give a very attention-grabbing performance as an everyday man slowly descending into madness.
The film was scripted by Jeff Buhler and of course he has adapted his script from Stephen King's book. It's full of all the usual horror clichés, from jump-scares to overly intense scenes and not forgetting horror-movie music stings to go along with some of the jump scares. I have not read the book, but from what I know about the source material all the key characters mostly transition faithfully from page to screen. There were some liberties taken, but more about that later.
The film was shot by Laurie Rose. I was satisfied with the cinematography for most of the runtime, but what struck me the most were without doubt the shots of the cemetery at night. They create an unsettling feeling and atmosphere in the viewer. And then you start to wonder, is something going to happen out here...?
The score was composed by Christopher Young, and he's done an average job of it. As mentioned before he uses horror music stings many times, but the standout moment for the score takes place in the middle of the movie during the funeral scene. Just by the sound of the score being played in the background, with not a single word being said, we can feel the grief being experienced by everyone in the scene.
The flaws which I think diminished the experience a bit for me were as follows. In an attempt to (I imagine) stay faithful to the source material as much as possible, the movie features a recreation of the novel's most famous death scene. It plays out almost in exactly the same way as it does in the book, except with one very notable difference. A difference I'm not even sure was required because up to a point, the outcomes of both situations remain the same so I don't believe it was an improvement.
Another flaw I found with the film is that I don't feel it's really a Stephen King adaptation. I think he is best known for memorable plots and characters, whereas this feels more like an above average, but fairly standard horror thriller. While it keeps your interest and is an intriguing mystery with a well-rounded group of characters, it doesn't say 'Stephen King' to me.
The conclusion I draw from this is that Pet Sematary has good performances, a cliched but still satisfactory script, and a score that works when the moment is right.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Pet Sematary
B-.
Thank you for reading.
Dumbo Review
Dumbo is directed by Tim Burton and stars Colin Farrell, Michael Keaton, Danny DeVito, Eva Green and Alan Arkin.
This film follows the very well-known story of an elephant with unusually-sized ears who is born into a struggling circus, and goes from being its biggest problem to being its new hit. Then the plot takes a new turn with the arrival of a wealthy entrepreneur who claims he can make even better use of the elephant than the circus can.
I take no pleasure in saying this but this film has no standout performances which I found a shame because with such a large and talented cast the potential feels very real. There are moments where Keaton's and Farrell's characters shine briefly. Besides that, no one grabbed my attention in particular.
I will however praise the CGI Dumbo; what I liked about him was how clearly his eyes could show what emotions he was supposed to be feeling. You could tell when he was happy, sad or even scared. And in terms of CGI, I think that's quite a step forward considering where we were with it about twenty years ago.
The film was written by Ehren Kruger and he maintains that this is a retelling of the same story by retaining several of its pivotal moments, such as how Dumbo loses his mother, the baby mine scene and how Dumbo learns to fly. And of course we see in full colour the pink elephants. Problems begin when you take into account the additions for this new version. They are either replacements of old characters, old characters given a bit more of a personality than they probably had in the original. And the characters who are entirely new to this story are either clichéd, or seem like interesting ideas that are not followed through.
The film was shot by Ben Davis and most of the time the visuals are fine - the standout moment for this is surely the pink elephants scene, as it felt very visually interesting and just about the only thing that contained any of Burton's signature surrealism. It reminded me that this was one of his movies that I was watching.
The score was composed by long time Burton collaborator Danny Elfman, and to add another disappointment his work here is not very impressive or memorable, it's just like: here's some happy- sounding music - feel happy! or sad music - feel sad! If the music has any standout moments it's from the rendition of the baby mine song. I thought it was done in a way that was respecting the original while also not being a full-on imitation.
But the main score is made all the more disappointing by the fact that so many of Elfman's best-known works are the themes he wrote for Burtons films, and they are usually memorable and in their own way unique. I don't know what happened here, but I don't like it.
Here is my major flaw with this film - why is it being directed by someone like Tim Burton? This feels like it could have been directed by anyone and it's directed by a man with one of the most unique styles of directing ever. And it's rarely on display here. It feels like a waste of a very talented director. I hope something like this never happens again.
My conclusions here are, that Dumbo has a talented but mostly wasted cast, a script that wants to please fans both old and new, and yet give us a new story. And a very unfortunate, uninspired score from someone who is very often a great composer. And that's before I even mention the lack of style from the director, most disappointing.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Dumbo...
D
Thank you for reading.
This film follows the very well-known story of an elephant with unusually-sized ears who is born into a struggling circus, and goes from being its biggest problem to being its new hit. Then the plot takes a new turn with the arrival of a wealthy entrepreneur who claims he can make even better use of the elephant than the circus can.
I take no pleasure in saying this but this film has no standout performances which I found a shame because with such a large and talented cast the potential feels very real. There are moments where Keaton's and Farrell's characters shine briefly. Besides that, no one grabbed my attention in particular.
I will however praise the CGI Dumbo; what I liked about him was how clearly his eyes could show what emotions he was supposed to be feeling. You could tell when he was happy, sad or even scared. And in terms of CGI, I think that's quite a step forward considering where we were with it about twenty years ago.
The film was written by Ehren Kruger and he maintains that this is a retelling of the same story by retaining several of its pivotal moments, such as how Dumbo loses his mother, the baby mine scene and how Dumbo learns to fly. And of course we see in full colour the pink elephants. Problems begin when you take into account the additions for this new version. They are either replacements of old characters, old characters given a bit more of a personality than they probably had in the original. And the characters who are entirely new to this story are either clichéd, or seem like interesting ideas that are not followed through.
The film was shot by Ben Davis and most of the time the visuals are fine - the standout moment for this is surely the pink elephants scene, as it felt very visually interesting and just about the only thing that contained any of Burton's signature surrealism. It reminded me that this was one of his movies that I was watching.
The score was composed by long time Burton collaborator Danny Elfman, and to add another disappointment his work here is not very impressive or memorable, it's just like: here's some happy- sounding music - feel happy! or sad music - feel sad! If the music has any standout moments it's from the rendition of the baby mine song. I thought it was done in a way that was respecting the original while also not being a full-on imitation.
But the main score is made all the more disappointing by the fact that so many of Elfman's best-known works are the themes he wrote for Burtons films, and they are usually memorable and in their own way unique. I don't know what happened here, but I don't like it.
Here is my major flaw with this film - why is it being directed by someone like Tim Burton? This feels like it could have been directed by anyone and it's directed by a man with one of the most unique styles of directing ever. And it's rarely on display here. It feels like a waste of a very talented director. I hope something like this never happens again.
My conclusions here are, that Dumbo has a talented but mostly wasted cast, a script that wants to please fans both old and new, and yet give us a new story. And a very unfortunate, uninspired score from someone who is very often a great composer. And that's before I even mention the lack of style from the director, most disappointing.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Dumbo...
D
Thank you for reading.
Shazam! Review
Shazam was directed by David F Sandberg, and stars Zachary Levi, Mark Strong, Asher Angel, Jack Dylan Grazer and Djimon Hounsou. It is based on the DC comics character.
This film is about an orphan who receives the power to turn into an adult superhero with a range of powers whenever he says the word 'shazam'. And like the last DC comics adaptation, Aquaman, this film goes for a more light-hearted approach that sometimes works and other times does not.
The performances in this film are rather mixed, Levi for example embodies the childlike personality of the hero very well and has fun with it, but someone like Jack Dylan Grazer at times seems very energetic and very loud and very annoying. I think the most notable performance is Mark Strong as the villain. He was charismatic, had good screen presence and when he is in a scene there's no doubt the whole room belongs to him.
The film was scripted by Henry Gayden. He has given the script a very basic origin story, with a greater emphasis on fun and humour, plus some drama to balance things out. While I do think all these things are balanced out well, I will say that if you want to get a laugh out of this it will require the acceptance and ability to laugh at low-grade humour; if you can't do that you will find it unbearably obnoxious!
The film was shot by Maxime Alexandre, and unfortunately looks unremarkable, the only thing that stood out to me as visually interesting is the look of the cave and the things that surround it, as they are very different from everything else and you feel a change of tone every time you see them.
The score was composed by Benjamín Wallfisch who has composed a very formulaic superhero movie score. This is especially evident in his main theme- instead of trying to write something original, he appears to have chosen the best-loved superhero themes, made his own adjustments to them and compiled them all together. The result does sound adventurous and exciting, but there is no denying it's lacking in ambition and inspiration.
Here is my major flaw with this film - it's the main character of Shazam! I feel like that there is nothing much at stake with him because he seems invulnerable to anything that happens. Any time he does appear to suffer harm, it's used for comic relief. Plus, when the time comes for him to seriously fight a villain he's backed up by another four or five heroes, all with their own powers. This only adds to his invulnerability, and lack of believability. The climactic fight just feels overlong and boring.
The conclusions I draw from this are that Shazam! has some variable performances, a humorous script where sometimes the jokes land successfully and at other times do not. There's only one thing that's visually interesting to look at and to finish it you have a score with a main theme that suits the movie but is an undeniable imitation of various other themes. The film also fails badly in the areas of investment in the characters and their believability.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Shazam!..
C
Thank you for reading.
This film is about an orphan who receives the power to turn into an adult superhero with a range of powers whenever he says the word 'shazam'. And like the last DC comics adaptation, Aquaman, this film goes for a more light-hearted approach that sometimes works and other times does not.
The performances in this film are rather mixed, Levi for example embodies the childlike personality of the hero very well and has fun with it, but someone like Jack Dylan Grazer at times seems very energetic and very loud and very annoying. I think the most notable performance is Mark Strong as the villain. He was charismatic, had good screen presence and when he is in a scene there's no doubt the whole room belongs to him.
The film was scripted by Henry Gayden. He has given the script a very basic origin story, with a greater emphasis on fun and humour, plus some drama to balance things out. While I do think all these things are balanced out well, I will say that if you want to get a laugh out of this it will require the acceptance and ability to laugh at low-grade humour; if you can't do that you will find it unbearably obnoxious!
The film was shot by Maxime Alexandre, and unfortunately looks unremarkable, the only thing that stood out to me as visually interesting is the look of the cave and the things that surround it, as they are very different from everything else and you feel a change of tone every time you see them.
The score was composed by Benjamín Wallfisch who has composed a very formulaic superhero movie score. This is especially evident in his main theme- instead of trying to write something original, he appears to have chosen the best-loved superhero themes, made his own adjustments to them and compiled them all together. The result does sound adventurous and exciting, but there is no denying it's lacking in ambition and inspiration.
Here is my major flaw with this film - it's the main character of Shazam! I feel like that there is nothing much at stake with him because he seems invulnerable to anything that happens. Any time he does appear to suffer harm, it's used for comic relief. Plus, when the time comes for him to seriously fight a villain he's backed up by another four or five heroes, all with their own powers. This only adds to his invulnerability, and lack of believability. The climactic fight just feels overlong and boring.
The conclusions I draw from this are that Shazam! has some variable performances, a humorous script where sometimes the jokes land successfully and at other times do not. There's only one thing that's visually interesting to look at and to finish it you have a score with a main theme that suits the movie but is an undeniable imitation of various other themes. The film also fails badly in the areas of investment in the characters and their believability.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Shazam!..
C
Thank you for reading.
Hellboy Review
Hellboy was directed by Neil Marshall and stars David Harbour, Mila Jovovitch, Ian McShane, Sasha Lane, Daniel Dae Kim. and Thomas Haden Church.
This film follows the titular protagonist and his team as they attempt to stop the resurrection of an evil sorceress who wants to unleash a plague upon the world. And he also learns some things about himself and his past along the way.
For the film's performances, we have a very talented cast with us, but unfortunately most of them seem perfectly happy to walk around this movie with bad English accents. McShane's accent is probably the least embarrassing accent in the film. But that is undoubtedly due to him actually being English so leave it to the professionals. David Harbour as Hellboy is definitely the film's best performance. He has wit, he has attitude, he can be dramatic when he needs to be, and to all that he adds all-round likeability to his character that keeps you watching and for the most part entertained.
The film was written by Andrew Cosby, and this script holds very little back and goes all the way with just about anything you can do in these slightly edgier comic adaptations. From the first few minuets we get seemingly endless amounts of profanity, and a beyond-excretive amount of violence and gore. Plus an unconventional narrator who doesn't seem to mind indulging in obscenities. Then there is the subplot of how humans feel about Hellboy and how he feels about them. The script does try to keep the main plot and subplot separate, so they may develop at their own pace, but it's when the two plots try to merge felt to me very convoluted and left me a bit confused.
The film was shot by Lorenzo Senatore. An acceptable job has been done with the cinematography, its not anything breathtaking. There's a battle at the start in black and white, which is interesting to admire as we don't get many things in black and white any more. Other than that it's just a lot of shots of city streets that many people are familiar with - except filled with monsters, and lots of blood.
The score was composed by Benjamin Wallfisch, who coincidentally just composed Shazam, which I have also just reviewed. Here it seems he is trying to make a soundtrack that fits the tone of the film with some moments of very loud and hard rock music, but also allowing himself the opportunity to try some other things along the way which gave the score a nice feeling of variety about it.
Now I shall move on to the flaws, one of which is that this film at times is far too loud - whether it's a fight scene and things are falling all over the place, or the use of rock music has got out of hand to the point of being nothing more than disturbingly loud.
Here is my other issue, I feel like this film has an over-reliance on gore. Many movies based on comics have had their fair share of gore and violence, but there was always a balance to make time for the story and characters to develop. With this film there is no feeling of balance and the gore nearly becomes exploitative.
What I draw from this is that Hellboy has one good key performance out of a huge number of bad ones, a script working too hard to cover too much, a few interesting visuals worth admiring and a score that will largely rest on your tolerance of heavy rock. And lastly it suffers shamelessly from being far too loud in certain places and choosing gore over things that would give the film at least a little more quality than it has.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Hellboy
C+
Thank you for reading.
This film follows the titular protagonist and his team as they attempt to stop the resurrection of an evil sorceress who wants to unleash a plague upon the world. And he also learns some things about himself and his past along the way.
For the film's performances, we have a very talented cast with us, but unfortunately most of them seem perfectly happy to walk around this movie with bad English accents. McShane's accent is probably the least embarrassing accent in the film. But that is undoubtedly due to him actually being English so leave it to the professionals. David Harbour as Hellboy is definitely the film's best performance. He has wit, he has attitude, he can be dramatic when he needs to be, and to all that he adds all-round likeability to his character that keeps you watching and for the most part entertained.
The film was written by Andrew Cosby, and this script holds very little back and goes all the way with just about anything you can do in these slightly edgier comic adaptations. From the first few minuets we get seemingly endless amounts of profanity, and a beyond-excretive amount of violence and gore. Plus an unconventional narrator who doesn't seem to mind indulging in obscenities. Then there is the subplot of how humans feel about Hellboy and how he feels about them. The script does try to keep the main plot and subplot separate, so they may develop at their own pace, but it's when the two plots try to merge felt to me very convoluted and left me a bit confused.
The film was shot by Lorenzo Senatore. An acceptable job has been done with the cinematography, its not anything breathtaking. There's a battle at the start in black and white, which is interesting to admire as we don't get many things in black and white any more. Other than that it's just a lot of shots of city streets that many people are familiar with - except filled with monsters, and lots of blood.
The score was composed by Benjamin Wallfisch, who coincidentally just composed Shazam, which I have also just reviewed. Here it seems he is trying to make a soundtrack that fits the tone of the film with some moments of very loud and hard rock music, but also allowing himself the opportunity to try some other things along the way which gave the score a nice feeling of variety about it.
Now I shall move on to the flaws, one of which is that this film at times is far too loud - whether it's a fight scene and things are falling all over the place, or the use of rock music has got out of hand to the point of being nothing more than disturbingly loud.
Here is my other issue, I feel like this film has an over-reliance on gore. Many movies based on comics have had their fair share of gore and violence, but there was always a balance to make time for the story and characters to develop. With this film there is no feeling of balance and the gore nearly becomes exploitative.
What I draw from this is that Hellboy has one good key performance out of a huge number of bad ones, a script working too hard to cover too much, a few interesting visuals worth admiring and a score that will largely rest on your tolerance of heavy rock. And lastly it suffers shamelessly from being far too loud in certain places and choosing gore over things that would give the film at least a little more quality than it has.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Hellboy
C+
Thank you for reading.
Tolkien Review
Tolkien is directed by Dome Karukoski and stars Nicolas Hoult, Lilly Collins, Colm Meaney and Derek Jacobi.
The film is about the life of the famous novelist J R R Tolkien, the friends he made, what he experienced when he served in the First World War, and how all that and other parts of his life would inspire him to write his Lord of the Rings trilogy.
The film has many performances of average standard, but one that stands out certainly comes from Nicolas Hoult as Tolkien himself. I feel like there were three very different sides to his character, there was the imaginative gentlemen side of him, the frustrated young man side of him, and the scared and confused, but still determined soldier at war. With all at his disposal he gives a performance that is both distinct from most of his previous work, and most of all believable.
The film was written by David Gleason and Stephen Beresford. With this film, it appears the writers have chosen to somewhat leave the traditions of the biopic, and focus instead on the early life of its subject before he becomes a success in life. What we have instead is a film about friendships, romance and passion for languages. So you will definitely have to try and care about the characters if you want some enjoyment out of what feels like a period drama. But not to worry, there are a few wartime scenes that maintain your interest when you feel you feel it starting to go down a bit. Also, I will admit I do think that for a biopic that doesn't entirely go by the formula, it's not perfect, but it's a start.
The film was shot by Lasse Frank, and while most of the shots are perfectly fine, it's the shots of things from Tolkien's point of view that are most eye-catching, whether its a dragon breathing out fire, or flames burning all over the place. You can look at them and think, Tolkien would have seen it like that and that's how it would be depicted in his books. I also thought it was quite an interesting way to incorporate some of the things from Tolkien's book into the movie, so you could see where they came from.
The score was composed by Thomas Newman, and I had some very mixed feelings towards his work here. On the one hand, most of it plays like an unremarkable and easily dismissed period drama score, but at certain points, I was sure I could hear the kind of music audiences mainly associate with the fantasy genre. I can only think of two reasons for this, one to appease the LOTR fans who are undoubtedly watching this and are probably bored, or it's the film's way of reminding you who this film is supposed to be about. Whichever it is, it certainly didn't help the score win any of my respect.
Here is my main criticism of the movie: it's that we see Tolkien setting to work on one of his books, and then the movie is over. We don't see the book come out, or see him enjoy his success. I just find it rather unusual that we have a character who goes through so much, and when it comes time for what could be called the payoff, the movie just ends.
The conclusions I draw from this are that Tolkien has an interesting plot, a good performance from its lead actor and a script that's rather more unconventional than many others in its genre. Some rather striking visuals with the cinematography, a score that at best give you mixed feelings. And one flaw that I could see Tolkien fans scratching their heads at.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Tolkien:
B-
Thank you for reading.
The film is about the life of the famous novelist J R R Tolkien, the friends he made, what he experienced when he served in the First World War, and how all that and other parts of his life would inspire him to write his Lord of the Rings trilogy.
The film has many performances of average standard, but one that stands out certainly comes from Nicolas Hoult as Tolkien himself. I feel like there were three very different sides to his character, there was the imaginative gentlemen side of him, the frustrated young man side of him, and the scared and confused, but still determined soldier at war. With all at his disposal he gives a performance that is both distinct from most of his previous work, and most of all believable.
The film was written by David Gleason and Stephen Beresford. With this film, it appears the writers have chosen to somewhat leave the traditions of the biopic, and focus instead on the early life of its subject before he becomes a success in life. What we have instead is a film about friendships, romance and passion for languages. So you will definitely have to try and care about the characters if you want some enjoyment out of what feels like a period drama. But not to worry, there are a few wartime scenes that maintain your interest when you feel you feel it starting to go down a bit. Also, I will admit I do think that for a biopic that doesn't entirely go by the formula, it's not perfect, but it's a start.
The film was shot by Lasse Frank, and while most of the shots are perfectly fine, it's the shots of things from Tolkien's point of view that are most eye-catching, whether its a dragon breathing out fire, or flames burning all over the place. You can look at them and think, Tolkien would have seen it like that and that's how it would be depicted in his books. I also thought it was quite an interesting way to incorporate some of the things from Tolkien's book into the movie, so you could see where they came from.
The score was composed by Thomas Newman, and I had some very mixed feelings towards his work here. On the one hand, most of it plays like an unremarkable and easily dismissed period drama score, but at certain points, I was sure I could hear the kind of music audiences mainly associate with the fantasy genre. I can only think of two reasons for this, one to appease the LOTR fans who are undoubtedly watching this and are probably bored, or it's the film's way of reminding you who this film is supposed to be about. Whichever it is, it certainly didn't help the score win any of my respect.
Here is my main criticism of the movie: it's that we see Tolkien setting to work on one of his books, and then the movie is over. We don't see the book come out, or see him enjoy his success. I just find it rather unusual that we have a character who goes through so much, and when it comes time for what could be called the payoff, the movie just ends.
The conclusions I draw from this are that Tolkien has an interesting plot, a good performance from its lead actor and a script that's rather more unconventional than many others in its genre. Some rather striking visuals with the cinematography, a score that at best give you mixed feelings. And one flaw that I could see Tolkien fans scratching their heads at.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Tolkien:
B-
Thank you for reading.
Monday, 14 January 2019
Stan and Ollie Review
Stan and Ollie was directed by Jon S. Baird and stars Jon C Reilly, Steve Coogan, Shirley Henderson, Danny Huston, Nina Ariana, Rufus Jones and Susy Kane.
This film is about the later lives of comedy duo Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy as they go on a tour and attempt to get another film made. I thought the plot was interesting because I think that the later half of their lives is maybe something only devout fans know about, and now not only do some fans get a better insight into that, but we also get a Laurel and Hardy movie.
Acting - everyone is trying their hardest here, but the best performance with no doubt, was John C Reilly as Hardy. He has this character down very well, he looks like Hardy, sounds like Hardy and even has some of Hardy's trademark mannerisms. All of those go into creating a performance different from what Reilly is known for and he pulls it off almost perfectly. Coogan is nearly as good as Laurel, but he seems not to reach the same level of dedication and immersion in his role as Reilly does.
Screenplay - it was written by Jeff Pope and I was impressed with it. The best thing about it is that it knows who its target audience is - Laurel and Hardy fans. Someone who is not a Laurel and Hardy fan could go to this and be mildly entertained, or at best could want to learn more. But there are things from famous Laurel and Hardy co-stars to highly detailed recreations of movie scenes, and moments of slapstick all meant to please the fans.
Cinematography - the cinematography is by Laurie Rose. The best shots were the ones taken around the old studios because it gives us an idea of the lengths people once went to make films, and how cinema has advanced since then.
Music - the score was composed by Rolfe Kent but unfortunately is reduced to a very traditional kind of period drama score, which you will take notice of when watching it, but forget once the film is over. And the only music you will remember is when the Laurel and Hardy theme was played.
Here is the one flaw, the film takes a sixteen-year gap during which Hardy does something that Laurel sees as betrayal. There are nods to it early on, but when it is mentioned out in the open it's forgiven and brushed aside very quickly. The subject is mentioned a few more times but never expanded upon, I feel as if the film could have had this and done a bit more with it, or not had it at all and the film would probably be no different.
In conclusion - Stan and Ollie has good lead performances, a good script that works as a basic comedy biopic and never forgets who its core audience is. However I felt it is let down by a score that is hard to remember, and a subplot that could have been interesting but is rarely explored.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Stan and Ollie
B+
Thank you for reading.
This film is about the later lives of comedy duo Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy as they go on a tour and attempt to get another film made. I thought the plot was interesting because I think that the later half of their lives is maybe something only devout fans know about, and now not only do some fans get a better insight into that, but we also get a Laurel and Hardy movie.
Acting - everyone is trying their hardest here, but the best performance with no doubt, was John C Reilly as Hardy. He has this character down very well, he looks like Hardy, sounds like Hardy and even has some of Hardy's trademark mannerisms. All of those go into creating a performance different from what Reilly is known for and he pulls it off almost perfectly. Coogan is nearly as good as Laurel, but he seems not to reach the same level of dedication and immersion in his role as Reilly does.
Screenplay - it was written by Jeff Pope and I was impressed with it. The best thing about it is that it knows who its target audience is - Laurel and Hardy fans. Someone who is not a Laurel and Hardy fan could go to this and be mildly entertained, or at best could want to learn more. But there are things from famous Laurel and Hardy co-stars to highly detailed recreations of movie scenes, and moments of slapstick all meant to please the fans.
Cinematography - the cinematography is by Laurie Rose. The best shots were the ones taken around the old studios because it gives us an idea of the lengths people once went to make films, and how cinema has advanced since then.
Music - the score was composed by Rolfe Kent but unfortunately is reduced to a very traditional kind of period drama score, which you will take notice of when watching it, but forget once the film is over. And the only music you will remember is when the Laurel and Hardy theme was played.
Here is the one flaw, the film takes a sixteen-year gap during which Hardy does something that Laurel sees as betrayal. There are nods to it early on, but when it is mentioned out in the open it's forgiven and brushed aside very quickly. The subject is mentioned a few more times but never expanded upon, I feel as if the film could have had this and done a bit more with it, or not had it at all and the film would probably be no different.
In conclusion - Stan and Ollie has good lead performances, a good script that works as a basic comedy biopic and never forgets who its core audience is. However I felt it is let down by a score that is hard to remember, and a subplot that could have been interesting but is rarely explored.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Stan and Ollie
B+
Thank you for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)