Men In Black: International was directed by F Gary Gray, and stars Chris Hemsworth, Tessa Thomson, Rebecca Ferguson, Kumail Nanjiani, Rafe Spall, Laurent and Larry Bourgeois, Emma Thompson and Liam Neeson.
The plot concerns an ordinary woman whose lifelong belief in the Men In Black leads her to their headquarters where she is recruited and sent to a UK-based branch of the organisation. There, she is assigned a partner and the two are sent across the globe to investigate the threat of shape-shifting aliens.
The performances are unfortunately very forgettable. Thomson and Hemsworth try to recreate the same chemistry that the original actors had, but their interactions feel so forced and unnatural that they are anything but believable. When Neeson gets a chance to be in the film longer then a few seconds every so often, it feels like nothing more than a way to compensate for the time and opportunities in the film he has missed.
The film was written by Art Marcum and Matt Holloway. The best word I can think of that describes the script is convoluted. It features at least one scene that feels recycled from the first film, it
seems more interested in exploring other countries than forwarding its plot for most of the runtime, and worst of all the whole film is executed without the strangeness or flair that made the original three films so enjoyable.
The film was shot by Stuart Dryburgh and the most of his work is bland. There is not a single memorable visual in this film, and if you were desperate to find even one shot you could call memorable you would be left with the character's faces being shot from a slightly unconventional angle.
The music was composed by Danny Elfman and Chris Bacon, and their score is probably the only thing that manages to save this film. The original theme is brought back with some techno-music added to it for modern touches, which was an interesting (if unnecessary) idea and like the previous instalments different variations of this theme play through several scenes. This is one of several things that I think will keep the long-time fans of this franchise interested.
While it sounds as if many aspects of the film left me disappointed, one shortcoming in particular was the worst: the incredibly weak main villains. I didn't care about them or why they were doing what they were doing, they lacked good screen presence and weren't remotely frightening. And when it came time to try and care about what they were doing, I was so fed up with them that I just didn't care at all.
The conclusions I draw from this are: Men In Black: International has forgettable performances; a convoluted script more interested in dealing with the less important aspects than with what actually matters; bland cinematography; a score that someone felt needed to be improved with modern techno-music, but really didn't; and villains who felt very weak in comparison to some of the others in this series of films.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Men In Black International...
D
Thank you for reading.
Saturday, 15 June 2019
Saturday, 8 June 2019
X -Men:Dark Phoenix Review
X-Men: Dark Phoenix is directed by Simon Kinberg and stars James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicolas Hoult, Sophie Turner, Tye Sheridan, Alexandra Shipp and Jessica Chastain.
The plot of this film revolves around Jean Grey who, during a mission in space with her fellow X-Men, suffers a terrible accident that takes her powers to a very unstable level and she turns to wreaking havoc on the Earth.
The performances are all mixed, James McAvoy as Charles/Professor X shows that he can be very likeable and charming, but also very serious and intense when he needs to be. Then there is Sophie Turner as Jean Grey/The Phoenix who is good at portraying the distress, fear and confusion she is going through - she is very convincing in the role. And then there is Fassbender as Magneto, who has done better work with the role in the past, but his presence here is an admirable effort and something to be appreciative of. Everyone else just feels like pale imitations of the actors who portrayed them in the previous instalments.
The script was written by the director and some mildly intense opening scenes do show some potential, but as soon as the titular villain makes her appearance a lot of the film ends up becoming very repetitive. Although the film could have some interesting ideas it just doesn't explore the possibilities. I found this script both unduly repetitive and lacking in ambition.
The film was shot by Mauro Fiore and there's very little of note - the film mostly just looks painfully average. There is a little bit of glossiness to scenes that take place in the past, but apart from that the visual side of this film is quite a let-down with only one small redeeming quality.
The music was composed by Hans Zimmer and his score certainly gives the film the darker tone that it's looking for, but nevertheless the music seems as if not much work went into it. What I find even worse is that if you listen carefully, you will hear several echoes of his earlier work. It sounds like he was only half-interested in this work and compensated with what he thought he could get away with.
I would like to mention some of the visual effects. I was somewhat impressed with a key sequence that manged to be bright, colourful, and still possess a mild intensity. And the film did have some use of slow motion which I think is fine, but if used too much is nothing more than a cheap way to keep the audience's attention.
Now I now what you're thinking, what could have damaged my experience with this film any more than the above? One thing did - the ending is a joke!. First we have a climactic fight scene that goes on too long and is hard to get invested in. Then we have one or two call-backs to previous films in the franchise, and the worst part of this is that the ending feels like it is open to a sequel that is never going to happen. This ending really annoyed me, I expected better from a film that was supposed to be a great send-off for the franchise, but instead we got this.
The conclusions I draw from this are: X-Men: Dark Phoenix has some good performances; a ambitious but over-repetitive script; very little to be impressed with in cinematography; a score that gets the tone of the film right, but after that gives in to trying as little as possible; some mildly impressive things to be found in the visual effects; and an ending that is the perfect example of the wrong way to end a beloved film franchise.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give X-Men: Dark Phoenix...
C-
Thank you for reading.
The plot of this film revolves around Jean Grey who, during a mission in space with her fellow X-Men, suffers a terrible accident that takes her powers to a very unstable level and she turns to wreaking havoc on the Earth.
The performances are all mixed, James McAvoy as Charles/Professor X shows that he can be very likeable and charming, but also very serious and intense when he needs to be. Then there is Sophie Turner as Jean Grey/The Phoenix who is good at portraying the distress, fear and confusion she is going through - she is very convincing in the role. And then there is Fassbender as Magneto, who has done better work with the role in the past, but his presence here is an admirable effort and something to be appreciative of. Everyone else just feels like pale imitations of the actors who portrayed them in the previous instalments.
The script was written by the director and some mildly intense opening scenes do show some potential, but as soon as the titular villain makes her appearance a lot of the film ends up becoming very repetitive. Although the film could have some interesting ideas it just doesn't explore the possibilities. I found this script both unduly repetitive and lacking in ambition.
The film was shot by Mauro Fiore and there's very little of note - the film mostly just looks painfully average. There is a little bit of glossiness to scenes that take place in the past, but apart from that the visual side of this film is quite a let-down with only one small redeeming quality.
The music was composed by Hans Zimmer and his score certainly gives the film the darker tone that it's looking for, but nevertheless the music seems as if not much work went into it. What I find even worse is that if you listen carefully, you will hear several echoes of his earlier work. It sounds like he was only half-interested in this work and compensated with what he thought he could get away with.
I would like to mention some of the visual effects. I was somewhat impressed with a key sequence that manged to be bright, colourful, and still possess a mild intensity. And the film did have some use of slow motion which I think is fine, but if used too much is nothing more than a cheap way to keep the audience's attention.
Now I now what you're thinking, what could have damaged my experience with this film any more than the above? One thing did - the ending is a joke!. First we have a climactic fight scene that goes on too long and is hard to get invested in. Then we have one or two call-backs to previous films in the franchise, and the worst part of this is that the ending feels like it is open to a sequel that is never going to happen. This ending really annoyed me, I expected better from a film that was supposed to be a great send-off for the franchise, but instead we got this.
The conclusions I draw from this are: X-Men: Dark Phoenix has some good performances; a ambitious but over-repetitive script; very little to be impressed with in cinematography; a score that gets the tone of the film right, but after that gives in to trying as little as possible; some mildly impressive things to be found in the visual effects; and an ending that is the perfect example of the wrong way to end a beloved film franchise.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give X-Men: Dark Phoenix...
C-
Thank you for reading.
Tuesday, 4 June 2019
Rocketman Review
Rocketman was directed by Dexter Fletcher and stars Taron Egerton, Jamie Bell, Richard Madden and Bryce Dallas Howard.
The film is, of course, about the life of Elton John, starting with his early years as a prodigy at the Royal Academy of Music to going on to have one of the biggest careers in the music industry. But it also deals with his personal life, some of his relationships with people, and the some of the struggles he faced during his life.
This film is full of good performances, but the standout has to be Taron Egerton as Elton John. I feel as if he found a good distinction between both sides of his character, he had to play the flamboyant singer and also the man with a rather serious and quite dramatic personal life. I thought he did both very well. I would also like to mention the performance of Bryce Dallas Howard as Sheila Eileen, Elton's mother. She had a very convincing English accent and played her part well, even if it was a bit clichéd.
The film was written by Lee Hall and what he has done here is to establish a balance between the traditions of the music biopic genre and the film's own ambitions that range from fantasy sequences with very dreamlike visuals, to high energy musical numbers. What impressed me most about the way this film was written was the balance of those two things and when the film chose to indulge in one of its more out-there aspects, it rarely got tiring, it just kept my interest due to how refreshing and unique it all was.
The film was shot by George Richmond and there are quite a few noteworthy shots, but the outstanding shots for me were when Elton levitates when playing the piano, and when (as a boy) he is conducting a choir in his room. These were impressive to me because they demonstrated how far the director was willing to push the musical fantasy ideas. And as members of the audience we are just left sitting there witnessing something that has never really been used in this genre before, and yet somehow it works.
Apart from many Elton John songs. the incidental music was composed by Matthew Margeson and in the way of an original score not much is noticeable. A great deal of energy has been brought to the musical numbers and they never drag on for too long. Also, they always have something that will keep the attention of those who are fans of musicals and those who are not. I must mention the singing - Egerton sang all of Elton's songs himself and personally I thought he did a good job. I would like to mention that fact that even if you are not an Elton John fan, you can still appreciate the skill that went into the songs for the movie.
The one misgiving I had was this film's treatment of John Reid, Elton's manager. Firstly I want to make it clear that I enjoyed Richard Madden's performance but was unhappy with his portrayal as an out-and-out villain here, especially we recently saw the same character in Bohemian Rhapsody (played by a different actor) in which he was shown much more positively. I have concluded that it must be that the two clients had very different experiences of him, leading to what may be a historical inaccuracy.
The conclusions I draw from this are that Rocketman has good performances, especially from its lead; a script that finds a good balance between genre conventions and ambition; some interesting shots with cinematography that further those ambitions; and in music, some high-energy musical numbers and some well-sung covers of popular songs. And one puzzling inconsistency in the portrayal of key character compared with how appears in another vert recent film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Rocketman…
B-
Thank you for reading.
The film is, of course, about the life of Elton John, starting with his early years as a prodigy at the Royal Academy of Music to going on to have one of the biggest careers in the music industry. But it also deals with his personal life, some of his relationships with people, and the some of the struggles he faced during his life.
This film is full of good performances, but the standout has to be Taron Egerton as Elton John. I feel as if he found a good distinction between both sides of his character, he had to play the flamboyant singer and also the man with a rather serious and quite dramatic personal life. I thought he did both very well. I would also like to mention the performance of Bryce Dallas Howard as Sheila Eileen, Elton's mother. She had a very convincing English accent and played her part well, even if it was a bit clichéd.
The film was written by Lee Hall and what he has done here is to establish a balance between the traditions of the music biopic genre and the film's own ambitions that range from fantasy sequences with very dreamlike visuals, to high energy musical numbers. What impressed me most about the way this film was written was the balance of those two things and when the film chose to indulge in one of its more out-there aspects, it rarely got tiring, it just kept my interest due to how refreshing and unique it all was.
The film was shot by George Richmond and there are quite a few noteworthy shots, but the outstanding shots for me were when Elton levitates when playing the piano, and when (as a boy) he is conducting a choir in his room. These were impressive to me because they demonstrated how far the director was willing to push the musical fantasy ideas. And as members of the audience we are just left sitting there witnessing something that has never really been used in this genre before, and yet somehow it works.
Apart from many Elton John songs. the incidental music was composed by Matthew Margeson and in the way of an original score not much is noticeable. A great deal of energy has been brought to the musical numbers and they never drag on for too long. Also, they always have something that will keep the attention of those who are fans of musicals and those who are not. I must mention the singing - Egerton sang all of Elton's songs himself and personally I thought he did a good job. I would like to mention that fact that even if you are not an Elton John fan, you can still appreciate the skill that went into the songs for the movie.
The one misgiving I had was this film's treatment of John Reid, Elton's manager. Firstly I want to make it clear that I enjoyed Richard Madden's performance but was unhappy with his portrayal as an out-and-out villain here, especially we recently saw the same character in Bohemian Rhapsody (played by a different actor) in which he was shown much more positively. I have concluded that it must be that the two clients had very different experiences of him, leading to what may be a historical inaccuracy.
The conclusions I draw from this are that Rocketman has good performances, especially from its lead; a script that finds a good balance between genre conventions and ambition; some interesting shots with cinematography that further those ambitions; and in music, some high-energy musical numbers and some well-sung covers of popular songs. And one puzzling inconsistency in the portrayal of key character compared with how appears in another vert recent film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Rocketman…
B-
Thank you for reading.
Wednesday, 29 May 2019
Godzilla: King of the Monsters Review
Godzilla: King of the Monsters was directed by Michael Dougherty and stars Kyle Chandler, Vera Farmiga, Bradley Whitford, Charles Dance, David Strathairn, Ken Watanabe and Millie Bobby Brown along with a few others as well.
The plot sees Godzilla face off against a group of monsters while military personnel and scientists fight to ensure their own survival.
This film unfortunately features no standout performances. There are a few moments through the film where people such as Farmiga, Brown, and Watanabe have to get very dramatic in their roles and they were definitely convincing when such moments came, which was only thing about the performances that stuck out to me. The rest of the time everyone else just seems to play their characters at a standard that can only be called barely credible.
The film was written by Michael Dougherty and Zach Shields. The script has a lot of things that it wants to do, from continuing the story from the first Godzilla film to giving us a story with new characters, family drama and debates on right and wrong. And not forgetting very intense battle scenes with monsters. The one thing that impressed me about the script was how perfectly-paced the battle scenes with Godzilla and the monsters are. They were kept at such a perfect pace that none of them dragged at all.
The film was shot by Lawrence Sher, who did an average job; the standout shots are the ones of Godzilla's underwater home, as they are so different visually from anything else in the film. I will also say that a shot of one of the monsters making its first appearance is also somewhat impressive, but it does feel it a bit manipulative when you see something like that and your first response is a feeling of awe that feels forced.
The music was composed by Bear McCreary and to be honest this film is so full of bombastic explosions and high-octane action that's its almost impossible to even to appreciate the score. Luckily it does have a standout moment when a character is walking toward certain death. The choice of music was perfect, it establishes the weight of what is happening on screen and it's all executed almost perfectly.
I would also like to mention the visual effects. I thought some were impressive, but after a while the film gets a bit overindulgent with them.
The one thing that severely damaged my experience with the movie was this. Much like the first film, the characters are not that interesting. I find this surprising since the main criticism of the first film was listened to - Godzilla's presence is improved here but the characters are just as badly underdeveloped as they were in the first film. It just seems to be all centred around Godzilla once he shows up, and very little time is made to develop the characters, both old and new.
The conclusions I draw from this are, Godzilla: King of the Monsters has no standout performances, but moments of promise from its cast; a script with a lot to do but that accomplishes very little of its ideas successfully; cinematography that's impressive if a bit manipulative; and a score that's hard to notice due to everything else going on around it, but that compensates with one perfect moment. And one flaw - the lack of interesting characters that has been carried on from the last Godzilla; I'm not sure why you would fix one flaw but not the other (and it's a rather easy one to fix) it's all a bit confusing.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Godzilla: King of the monsters...
C-
Thank you for reading.
The plot sees Godzilla face off against a group of monsters while military personnel and scientists fight to ensure their own survival.
This film unfortunately features no standout performances. There are a few moments through the film where people such as Farmiga, Brown, and Watanabe have to get very dramatic in their roles and they were definitely convincing when such moments came, which was only thing about the performances that stuck out to me. The rest of the time everyone else just seems to play their characters at a standard that can only be called barely credible.
The film was written by Michael Dougherty and Zach Shields. The script has a lot of things that it wants to do, from continuing the story from the first Godzilla film to giving us a story with new characters, family drama and debates on right and wrong. And not forgetting very intense battle scenes with monsters. The one thing that impressed me about the script was how perfectly-paced the battle scenes with Godzilla and the monsters are. They were kept at such a perfect pace that none of them dragged at all.
The film was shot by Lawrence Sher, who did an average job; the standout shots are the ones of Godzilla's underwater home, as they are so different visually from anything else in the film. I will also say that a shot of one of the monsters making its first appearance is also somewhat impressive, but it does feel it a bit manipulative when you see something like that and your first response is a feeling of awe that feels forced.
The music was composed by Bear McCreary and to be honest this film is so full of bombastic explosions and high-octane action that's its almost impossible to even to appreciate the score. Luckily it does have a standout moment when a character is walking toward certain death. The choice of music was perfect, it establishes the weight of what is happening on screen and it's all executed almost perfectly.
I would also like to mention the visual effects. I thought some were impressive, but after a while the film gets a bit overindulgent with them.
The one thing that severely damaged my experience with the movie was this. Much like the first film, the characters are not that interesting. I find this surprising since the main criticism of the first film was listened to - Godzilla's presence is improved here but the characters are just as badly underdeveloped as they were in the first film. It just seems to be all centred around Godzilla once he shows up, and very little time is made to develop the characters, both old and new.
The conclusions I draw from this are, Godzilla: King of the Monsters has no standout performances, but moments of promise from its cast; a script with a lot to do but that accomplishes very little of its ideas successfully; cinematography that's impressive if a bit manipulative; and a score that's hard to notice due to everything else going on around it, but that compensates with one perfect moment. And one flaw - the lack of interesting characters that has been carried on from the last Godzilla; I'm not sure why you would fix one flaw but not the other (and it's a rather easy one to fix) it's all a bit confusing.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Godzilla: King of the monsters...
C-
Thank you for reading.
Tuesday, 28 May 2019
Aladdin Review
Aladdin is directed by Guy Ritchie and stars Mena Massoud, Naomi Scott, Marwan Kenzari, Navid Negabahan, Nashim Pedrad, Billy Magnussen and of course Will Smith as the Genie.
The film revolves around the titular character who falls in love with a princess and wants to impress her, and is given the chance to do so when a man named Jafar asks him to go into a cave to find and bring him a lamp... which has the power to grant him three wishes.
The performances are quite mixed, some leave no impression at all while others leave you mildly impressed. The standout performance for me would have to be Marwan Kenzari as Jafar. I found him to be intense, very engaging and interesting to watch, and above all he was believable in the role.
I will briefly mention Will Smith as the genie, The controversy his casting caused was completely unjustified. It's just another Will Smith performance where he spends the entire film going around with his one-note sense of humour. The only difference is sometimes we see him in blue CGI, an average effect, or we see him in human form. That's all I will say on the matter.
The film was written by John August and Guy Ritchie. I can say that they have definitely succeeded in transplanting key characters and well-known songs from the previous film version to this new adaptation. The thing that struck me most about the script was its emphasis on comedy, and in case you are wondering, the film does contain some of Guy Ritchie's usual movie tropes. An example of this is things being explained out loud as they are also being shown onscreen.
The film was shot by Alan Stewart and it is my regret to say that nothing stands out about the cinematography, at best all you get is a few shots of a vast desert and some exteriors of the main city, both of which I would concede are impressive.
The score was composed by Alan Menken who also composed the score for the previous film. Here he has come up with a score that seems no more than passable, as if his mind and efforts were more focused on the songs. Getting onto the songs now, I feel somewhat conflicted about them as each one got a very different response from me than the last. With one of them I thought they were trying too hard, another not hard enough. And then just done well enough for me to take notice. In the end I would have to call the music in this film middling.
Here is the one flaw I have with the film, it's just too long. With a runtime of 128 minutes, instead of telling the audience a familiar story with something new occasionally thrown in, the film chooses to drag out as many scenes as it can for as long as it can. It even felt like a whole hour had passed before we even got to the main plot of the film. Maybe they could have got away with this first time around but surely not in a remake of a story this well known. I find this to be a disappointment and hope lessons are learned if these remakes are to continue.
The conclusions I draw from this are, Aladdin has one standout performance, a script that respects the original source material and has ideas of its own that it wishes to pursue. Some impressive shots to be found in the cinematography, and a middling score featuring songs that will depend on how you feel at the end of each one. And of the course the film suffers horribly from being overlong and having scenes that are dragged out as far as they can go.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Aladdin...
C-
Thank you for reading.
The film revolves around the titular character who falls in love with a princess and wants to impress her, and is given the chance to do so when a man named Jafar asks him to go into a cave to find and bring him a lamp... which has the power to grant him three wishes.
The performances are quite mixed, some leave no impression at all while others leave you mildly impressed. The standout performance for me would have to be Marwan Kenzari as Jafar. I found him to be intense, very engaging and interesting to watch, and above all he was believable in the role.
I will briefly mention Will Smith as the genie, The controversy his casting caused was completely unjustified. It's just another Will Smith performance where he spends the entire film going around with his one-note sense of humour. The only difference is sometimes we see him in blue CGI, an average effect, or we see him in human form. That's all I will say on the matter.
The film was written by John August and Guy Ritchie. I can say that they have definitely succeeded in transplanting key characters and well-known songs from the previous film version to this new adaptation. The thing that struck me most about the script was its emphasis on comedy, and in case you are wondering, the film does contain some of Guy Ritchie's usual movie tropes. An example of this is things being explained out loud as they are also being shown onscreen.
The film was shot by Alan Stewart and it is my regret to say that nothing stands out about the cinematography, at best all you get is a few shots of a vast desert and some exteriors of the main city, both of which I would concede are impressive.
The score was composed by Alan Menken who also composed the score for the previous film. Here he has come up with a score that seems no more than passable, as if his mind and efforts were more focused on the songs. Getting onto the songs now, I feel somewhat conflicted about them as each one got a very different response from me than the last. With one of them I thought they were trying too hard, another not hard enough. And then just done well enough for me to take notice. In the end I would have to call the music in this film middling.
Here is the one flaw I have with the film, it's just too long. With a runtime of 128 minutes, instead of telling the audience a familiar story with something new occasionally thrown in, the film chooses to drag out as many scenes as it can for as long as it can. It even felt like a whole hour had passed before we even got to the main plot of the film. Maybe they could have got away with this first time around but surely not in a remake of a story this well known. I find this to be a disappointment and hope lessons are learned if these remakes are to continue.
The conclusions I draw from this are, Aladdin has one standout performance, a script that respects the original source material and has ideas of its own that it wishes to pursue. Some impressive shots to be found in the cinematography, and a middling score featuring songs that will depend on how you feel at the end of each one. And of the course the film suffers horribly from being overlong and having scenes that are dragged out as far as they can go.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Aladdin...
C-
Thank you for reading.
Sunday, 26 May 2019
The Secret Life of Pets 2 Review
The Secret Life of Pets 2 is directed by Chris Renaud, and features an all star voice cast that incudes Patton Oswalt, Kevin Hart, Jenney Slate, Lake Bell, Tiffany Haddish, Dana Carvey and Harrison Ford. Plus many more.
The film revolves around Max the terrier adjusting to several new changes in his life that have occurred since the end of the first film, while some of the other pets get into situations of their own.
This film has unfortunately no standout performances and they all feel of an average standard. There are moments where the likes of Hart and Ford shine briefly in their roles, but there is no denying that, animal or human, live action or animation, the actors would choose to portray their characters exactly same way.
The film was written by Bryan Lynch and I must admit I was very impressed with the script. The three acts are structured very well; you can feel where one ends and another begins, also the comedy dialogue and slapstick have seen some areas of improvement but are still carried out with the same high energy that made the first one so enjoyable. And most importantly some characters get what I felt was a good amount of development.
This film is of course an Illumination production and is animated in their signature style. And the animation is just fine, everything is very bright and colourful as always. The characters' expressions are mostly quite clear. It's interesting to look at certain things like New York City and how that's been animated. But the downside of it is that there has been little improvement on it since the last film this company released just under two years ago.
The score was composed by Alexandre Desplat who of course composed the music for the first one, and here the score felt as if he just took the most exciting aspects of the first one and made one or two slight changes. You can even feel the lack of effort that was put into this, even if the score is something you're not paying that much attention to. I can barely remember any parts of the score from the film itself but I do have clear memories of music from the trailers that I saw. Clearly there is an issue when the music used in a film's marketing is more memorable than the music in the final product.
The one flaw that damaged my viewing experience is this: near the end of the film, a subplot and the main plot clash somewhat and I felt that it caused the film to drag on a bit, especially for a film that is just over an hour and a half long, and the sublot was already going on longer than it needed to. I didn't understand any of this. Why did those two particular things need to come together? Why is what was meant to be a small side story taking so long to resolve? Aren't subplots meant to stay on their own and not negatively effect the main plot of the film? In this case, however, this one did and I was not impressed.
The conclusions I draw from this are that Secret Life of Pets 2 has average voice acting performances, with good moments from certain actors; a surprisingly good script that was well-structured and had improved on what was well liked from the first; average animation with very few things that are interesting to look; and a score that feels like it has slightly updated material from its predecessor. And of course, the subplot flaw that I really did not expect to find in an animated kids' film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give The Secret Life of Pets 2...
B-
Thank you for reading.
Friday, 17 May 2019
John Wick Chapter 3- Parabellum. Review
John Wick Chapter 3 - Parabellum is directed by Chad Stahelski and stars Keanu Reeves, Halle Berry, Laurence Fishburne, Mark Dacascos, Asia Kate Dillon, Lance Reddick, Anjelica Houston and Ian McShane.
The plot this time revolves around John Wick going on the run after killing someone on Continental grounds, and reaching out to whoever may be willing to help him as a contact has been put on his life. And he is now the target of some of the world's top assassins.
The performances in this film are all very mixed, some work on a very serious and dramatic level, and others work on a more light-hearted level. The standout performance in this film is Keanu Reeves as John Wick. He plays the character in very much the same way he has in the previous two films. Only this time, when he is present on screen you get a sense of desperation and urgency which made his situation all the more believable
The film was written by Derek Kolstad, Shay Hatten, Chris Collins and Mark Abrahams. Once again we have fight scenes that have been choreographed rather impressively, and lots of brutal, hard-hitting action. The thing that really impressed me about it, and what make this film slightly different among the rest, is how effortlessly it can take a very violent scene and use it to have a moment of dark humour.
The film was shot by Jonathan Sela. I thought most of the cinematography was fine on average scale, but the standout shots for me were the ones of New York City. From the vehicle-filled roads, the highly-populated streets, and the brightly-lit neon buildings. I thought those were not only very visually interesting but also helped to give an accurate depiction of a real city.
The score was composed by Tyler Bates and Joel J Richard. The score is very much the same as before, rather a lot of electronic dance music, but with the exception of a brief use of sitar music when a character is stuck in the desert. It just felt like a lack of effort, followed by an attempt to compensate by adding minor new elements to the score, that in the end come off as forgettable and pitiful.
Here is where I feel the film is most flawed: it has a runtime of two hours and eleven minutes, making it the longest John Wick film. Unfortunately I don't feel that the longer runtime was taken full advantage of. A few of the fight scenes go on for so long that they begin to feel quite padded. What I found even worse about this is that, when a fight has gone on for far too long it's difficult to remain interested in it and it just becomes boring.
The conclusions I draw from this are, John Wick Chapter 3 -Parabellum has good performances, a script that definitely doesn't disappoint, some interesting nightlife visuals in the cinematography, and a complete failure of a score. And a major flaw that I was convinced a movie like John Wick would have no problem avoiding, it seems I expected too much of him.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give John Wick Chapter3 - Parabellum...
B
Thank you for reading.
The plot this time revolves around John Wick going on the run after killing someone on Continental grounds, and reaching out to whoever may be willing to help him as a contact has been put on his life. And he is now the target of some of the world's top assassins.
The performances in this film are all very mixed, some work on a very serious and dramatic level, and others work on a more light-hearted level. The standout performance in this film is Keanu Reeves as John Wick. He plays the character in very much the same way he has in the previous two films. Only this time, when he is present on screen you get a sense of desperation and urgency which made his situation all the more believable
The film was written by Derek Kolstad, Shay Hatten, Chris Collins and Mark Abrahams. Once again we have fight scenes that have been choreographed rather impressively, and lots of brutal, hard-hitting action. The thing that really impressed me about it, and what make this film slightly different among the rest, is how effortlessly it can take a very violent scene and use it to have a moment of dark humour.
The film was shot by Jonathan Sela. I thought most of the cinematography was fine on average scale, but the standout shots for me were the ones of New York City. From the vehicle-filled roads, the highly-populated streets, and the brightly-lit neon buildings. I thought those were not only very visually interesting but also helped to give an accurate depiction of a real city.
The score was composed by Tyler Bates and Joel J Richard. The score is very much the same as before, rather a lot of electronic dance music, but with the exception of a brief use of sitar music when a character is stuck in the desert. It just felt like a lack of effort, followed by an attempt to compensate by adding minor new elements to the score, that in the end come off as forgettable and pitiful.
Here is where I feel the film is most flawed: it has a runtime of two hours and eleven minutes, making it the longest John Wick film. Unfortunately I don't feel that the longer runtime was taken full advantage of. A few of the fight scenes go on for so long that they begin to feel quite padded. What I found even worse about this is that, when a fight has gone on for far too long it's difficult to remain interested in it and it just becomes boring.
The conclusions I draw from this are, John Wick Chapter 3 -Parabellum has good performances, a script that definitely doesn't disappoint, some interesting nightlife visuals in the cinematography, and a complete failure of a score. And a major flaw that I was convinced a movie like John Wick would have no problem avoiding, it seems I expected too much of him.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give John Wick Chapter3 - Parabellum...
B
Thank you for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)