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.
Friday, 29 November 2019
Knives Out Review
Let me ask you a question. What do you do when you make a film and the response to it turns it into one of the most divided options in recent history? The answer at least for Rian Johnson, who did just that, appears to be to make your next film a murder mystery throwback with the kind of ensemble cast that puts other ensembles to shame. The result is Knives Out in which an elderly crime novelist (Christopher Plummer) has his 85th birthday and invites his very dysfunctional family along for a party. He is then found dead the next morning, forcing the whole family to come back to the house, since a very-southern-accented detective (Daniel Craig) suspects one of them is the culprit.
In terms of the cast the word ensemble can't be stressed enough. We have Jamie Lee Curtis, Don Johnson, Michel Shannon, Toni Collette, Lakeith Stanfield and a newcomer in Ana De Armas. It's clear we have a very talented group of people here, but unfortunately none of their performances feels particularly engaging or worth paying much attention to, at least from that lot. Plummer is unusually charismatic in the few scenes he's in, despite being the oldest cast member. And I do have to admit I admired the efforts of Chris Evans in going out of his comfort zone to play a character who is far away from his many clean-cut good guy roles (one in particular) that he is known for. His enjoyment in the role is evident and it's also very refreshing to see him show some skill in dark comedy. While I wasn't the biggest fan of his performance, his efforts almost pay off. Of course we have to talk about Daniel Craig as Benoit Blanc; as mentioned before, he possesses a southern accent and all the personality traits that come with playing an eccentric detective. A mixture of those and Craig's commitment to the role are what make him easily the standout among the cast.
Johnson also wrote this film and he clearly has an understanding of how these whodunnit films are supposed to go. He goes for all the genre tropes, such as multiple people being asked where they were at what time, and there being several different motives for the murder. He also places quite a few twists and turns along the way. At times there was a sense of what felt like attempts to subvert the familiar tropes but they came off as forced and really unnatural, but I can't blame Johnson for trying. At the halfway point, the film has put us through so many of these twists, and relayed information we have already heard, just through different points of view, that the film can't help but feel bogged down. And for something that's a light-hearted mystery, it gets over-complicated and it becomes hard to stay interested in what is happening.
For cinematography we have Johnson regular Steve Yedlin who, if I'm going to give him praise for anything, comes up with a shot of the house at the start of the film which, combined with an unsettling background surrounding it, sets the appropriate tone for the next two hours; even if that tone is going to be the subject of much satire. There is also something to be said about aesthetic since the film goes from looking like an old-fashioned murder mystery with a middling budget, to a murder mystery set in rural America with a low budget - it's perhaps a bit inconsistent.
The score was composed by Nathan Johnson, and while I hate to admit this, the score is easy to overlook since so much of your attention needs to be on the plot, and I couldn't even remember a single piece of it hours later. Could it really have been much good?
Here is how I view Knives Out: it wants to pay tribute to a genre that still gives us good films from time to time; the ambition and passions of the director are clear, he has a cast of whom half don't particularly stand out while others can; but he couldn't help but indulge in forced subversion of tropes. There's a plot that gets too complicated in what should have been a very simple story. But worst of all, it's all dragged out for far too long. One day I'm sure the much-loved murder mystery genre will get the perfect tribute film, but personally I don't think we're there yet.
C+
Thank you for reading.
In terms of the cast the word ensemble can't be stressed enough. We have Jamie Lee Curtis, Don Johnson, Michel Shannon, Toni Collette, Lakeith Stanfield and a newcomer in Ana De Armas. It's clear we have a very talented group of people here, but unfortunately none of their performances feels particularly engaging or worth paying much attention to, at least from that lot. Plummer is unusually charismatic in the few scenes he's in, despite being the oldest cast member. And I do have to admit I admired the efforts of Chris Evans in going out of his comfort zone to play a character who is far away from his many clean-cut good guy roles (one in particular) that he is known for. His enjoyment in the role is evident and it's also very refreshing to see him show some skill in dark comedy. While I wasn't the biggest fan of his performance, his efforts almost pay off. Of course we have to talk about Daniel Craig as Benoit Blanc; as mentioned before, he possesses a southern accent and all the personality traits that come with playing an eccentric detective. A mixture of those and Craig's commitment to the role are what make him easily the standout among the cast.
Johnson also wrote this film and he clearly has an understanding of how these whodunnit films are supposed to go. He goes for all the genre tropes, such as multiple people being asked where they were at what time, and there being several different motives for the murder. He also places quite a few twists and turns along the way. At times there was a sense of what felt like attempts to subvert the familiar tropes but they came off as forced and really unnatural, but I can't blame Johnson for trying. At the halfway point, the film has put us through so many of these twists, and relayed information we have already heard, just through different points of view, that the film can't help but feel bogged down. And for something that's a light-hearted mystery, it gets over-complicated and it becomes hard to stay interested in what is happening.
For cinematography we have Johnson regular Steve Yedlin who, if I'm going to give him praise for anything, comes up with a shot of the house at the start of the film which, combined with an unsettling background surrounding it, sets the appropriate tone for the next two hours; even if that tone is going to be the subject of much satire. There is also something to be said about aesthetic since the film goes from looking like an old-fashioned murder mystery with a middling budget, to a murder mystery set in rural America with a low budget - it's perhaps a bit inconsistent.
The score was composed by Nathan Johnson, and while I hate to admit this, the score is easy to overlook since so much of your attention needs to be on the plot, and I couldn't even remember a single piece of it hours later. Could it really have been much good?
Here is how I view Knives Out: it wants to pay tribute to a genre that still gives us good films from time to time; the ambition and passions of the director are clear, he has a cast of whom half don't particularly stand out while others can; but he couldn't help but indulge in forced subversion of tropes. There's a plot that gets too complicated in what should have been a very simple story. But worst of all, it's all dragged out for far too long. One day I'm sure the much-loved murder mystery genre will get the perfect tribute film, but personally I don't think we're there yet.
C+
Thank you for reading.
Monday, 28 October 2019
Terminator: Dark Fate Review
After seemingly failing twice to be brought into the 21st century successfully, with films where the only noteworthy aspects were trailers that gave everything away months in advance and a leaked tape of a lead actor ranting at a crew member on set, the Terminator series continues with Terminator: Dark Fate, directed by Tim Miller of Deadpool fame. He has brought back Arnold Schwarzenegger and Linda Hamilton and maybe to try to ensure a third failure is not on the cards, James Cameron is back as executive producer.
The plot sees two terminators sent from a machine-ruled future, one to kill someone who will play a key role in their downfall, the other to try to stop it. The machines send a terminator (Gabriel Luna) who can morph into two terminators at once, and the resistance send a soldier who is half human, half machine, with enhanced capabilities (Mackenzie Davis). But in a surprising turn of events, the target isn't Sarah or John Connor but a young factory girl named Dani (Natalia Reyes). And eventually she runs into the older version of Sarah (Linda Hamilton) that we saw in Terminator 2. And of course the T-800 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) joins in and they find themselves going all over America in hiding and figuring out a way to kill the evil terminator and save the future.
There's nothing special in the performances. Out of all the new cast Davis seems to be the one with the most charisma and can carry scenes with some level of believability. Reyes plays her character in a too-similar way to how Hamilton played Sarah in the first film, but where Hamilton knew where to stop screaming and calm down, Reyes just keeps on freaking out until it reaches the point of being annoying. As for Luca, he would be a worthy addition to the Terminator villains list if he wasn't so hard to take seriously. It's clear that he's meant to be influenced by the T-1000, but he just looks too ordinary and just doesn't fit the part at all, no matter what he does in an attempt to be frightening. As for Hamilton and Schwarzenegger, she plays the older Sarah Connor much like she did last time, except this time she has to come across as experienced and hardened by what she has done. Her efforts are noticed, if a bit underused. Arnold just does what he's done before, says serious things when the plot demands it and occasionally says things that due to his accent you find funny. Overdone is definitely the word, but is works and gets results.
The script, by David S Goyer, Billy Ray and Justin Rhodes feels like it's doing what The Force Awakens did for Star Wars. New plot, new and old characters and hitting some beats from a previous film while adding some minor touches of their own. This script is a new story but can't help but feel very similar to the first film in a lot of ways: woman on the run from a machine, with help from a resistance fighter. But things like throwing in another machine as a protector and a terminator who has a lot of blade weaponry and turns into liquid a lot, echoes the second film. While all that's going on, you have to develop your new plot and characters and perhaps expand the film's universe... well, some of that did pay off as the T-800 and Sarah feel developed and fleshed out as characters. For additions, we have a slightly better look at the AI-controlled future (the AI is now called Legion, not Skynet any more). But where the script definitely fails is in being way overlong, with dialogue-heavy scenes dragging on instead of letting action scenes speak for itself; that would give us more to be entertained by. Also, the lack of original ideas causes it to lack the engagement of the first two films, especially the second one, considering it was longer but never felt like it. We do spend some time in Mexico for a change, but it's really only there so that the terminators will have two places to rampage through. However, to end on a positive note, I will mention the action scenes. They're easy to appreciate when onscreen and carry the franchise's brutal, hard-hitting action style.
I don't feel as if there's much to say about Ken Seng's cinematography, expect for one mildly impressive shot that occurs during a chase scene. Besides that, no shots really stand out. But on the other hand, the film is surprisingly well lit.
Tom Holkenborg's score did not do anything for me. It just felt like really intense music to go with the fighting and chase scenes, and its more or less the same for the even darker future scenes. For Terminator, the key moment of the music will always be the familiar main theme. It can be heard a few times during the film and I feel it should be admired as, instead of building up to something or slowing down, it just plays the same tune over again - until the last few seconds, where a minor amount of intensity is added, but the difference is not too much or too little but just the right amount to end a main theme and begin the film.
To my mind, Terminator: Dark Fate may have the potential to pave a future for the franchise, with one good performance from a new cast member, and the old cast giving their best efforts with the material they have been given. The script, while filled with ideas and ways to develop characters, seems promising but also has an unhealthy attachment to the franchise's past that is seen repeatedly throughout the film. It's far from perfect, but as a move into the new century and only a few years away from when Judgement Day is supposed to happen, it's not a bad start.
C+
Thank you for reading.
The plot sees two terminators sent from a machine-ruled future, one to kill someone who will play a key role in their downfall, the other to try to stop it. The machines send a terminator (Gabriel Luna) who can morph into two terminators at once, and the resistance send a soldier who is half human, half machine, with enhanced capabilities (Mackenzie Davis). But in a surprising turn of events, the target isn't Sarah or John Connor but a young factory girl named Dani (Natalia Reyes). And eventually she runs into the older version of Sarah (Linda Hamilton) that we saw in Terminator 2. And of course the T-800 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) joins in and they find themselves going all over America in hiding and figuring out a way to kill the evil terminator and save the future.
There's nothing special in the performances. Out of all the new cast Davis seems to be the one with the most charisma and can carry scenes with some level of believability. Reyes plays her character in a too-similar way to how Hamilton played Sarah in the first film, but where Hamilton knew where to stop screaming and calm down, Reyes just keeps on freaking out until it reaches the point of being annoying. As for Luca, he would be a worthy addition to the Terminator villains list if he wasn't so hard to take seriously. It's clear that he's meant to be influenced by the T-1000, but he just looks too ordinary and just doesn't fit the part at all, no matter what he does in an attempt to be frightening. As for Hamilton and Schwarzenegger, she plays the older Sarah Connor much like she did last time, except this time she has to come across as experienced and hardened by what she has done. Her efforts are noticed, if a bit underused. Arnold just does what he's done before, says serious things when the plot demands it and occasionally says things that due to his accent you find funny. Overdone is definitely the word, but is works and gets results.
The script, by David S Goyer, Billy Ray and Justin Rhodes feels like it's doing what The Force Awakens did for Star Wars. New plot, new and old characters and hitting some beats from a previous film while adding some minor touches of their own. This script is a new story but can't help but feel very similar to the first film in a lot of ways: woman on the run from a machine, with help from a resistance fighter. But things like throwing in another machine as a protector and a terminator who has a lot of blade weaponry and turns into liquid a lot, echoes the second film. While all that's going on, you have to develop your new plot and characters and perhaps expand the film's universe... well, some of that did pay off as the T-800 and Sarah feel developed and fleshed out as characters. For additions, we have a slightly better look at the AI-controlled future (the AI is now called Legion, not Skynet any more). But where the script definitely fails is in being way overlong, with dialogue-heavy scenes dragging on instead of letting action scenes speak for itself; that would give us more to be entertained by. Also, the lack of original ideas causes it to lack the engagement of the first two films, especially the second one, considering it was longer but never felt like it. We do spend some time in Mexico for a change, but it's really only there so that the terminators will have two places to rampage through. However, to end on a positive note, I will mention the action scenes. They're easy to appreciate when onscreen and carry the franchise's brutal, hard-hitting action style.
I don't feel as if there's much to say about Ken Seng's cinematography, expect for one mildly impressive shot that occurs during a chase scene. Besides that, no shots really stand out. But on the other hand, the film is surprisingly well lit.
Tom Holkenborg's score did not do anything for me. It just felt like really intense music to go with the fighting and chase scenes, and its more or less the same for the even darker future scenes. For Terminator, the key moment of the music will always be the familiar main theme. It can be heard a few times during the film and I feel it should be admired as, instead of building up to something or slowing down, it just plays the same tune over again - until the last few seconds, where a minor amount of intensity is added, but the difference is not too much or too little but just the right amount to end a main theme and begin the film.
To my mind, Terminator: Dark Fate may have the potential to pave a future for the franchise, with one good performance from a new cast member, and the old cast giving their best efforts with the material they have been given. The script, while filled with ideas and ways to develop characters, seems promising but also has an unhealthy attachment to the franchise's past that is seen repeatedly throughout the film. It's far from perfect, but as a move into the new century and only a few years away from when Judgement Day is supposed to happen, it's not a bad start.
C+
Thank you for reading.
Wednesday, 23 October 2019
Gemini Man Review
This appears to be turning into something of a habit for Ang Lee - he will take a project that's been around for a long time that no one wants and direct it himself. It worked it well enough for him with Life of Pi in 2012, and now similar circumstances have led to him directing Gemini Man.
Here Will Smith stars as an ageing assassin who feels it is time to retire from his violent yet illustrious career. But these plans are ultimately put on hold when it becomes clear that his former employers want him dead, and are sending to do it, the one target he could successfully kill. Who just so happens to an exact copy of himself.
Will Smith plays both versions of himself with his signature likeability, but at the same time, and this is especially noticeable with the older one, he gives the impression that he's bored and would rather be somewhere else. But there are a few moments scattered throughout where it seems he might be showing signs of improvement. As for the younger one, he's very much in the same situation and even though he looks like a young Will Smith he's missing the essential charisma that made Smith's previous work so enjoyable and successful.
Clive Owen plays the villain and tries to add some intensity to his role, but despite his best efforts it just comes off as another clichéd villain part for him. As for Benedict Wong and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, they are completely wasted in their roles; and really just there to be two people to accompany Smith through the film's main events who are not his younger self or the villain, and who also won't become irrelevant or (more than likely) be killed off after one scene.
The script went through multiple writers, including the very talented Brain Heglaund. But the final product has three people given credit, one of whom originally pitched the film. The script is formulaic in every sense of the word, after a while you can see everything that's going to or could possibly happen a mile away. And when it comes time for the big reveal that the film has been waiting to show us, it doesn't feel particularly worth it, for many reasons. The first of which is some of the worst pacing I have experienced in a film all year, it takes what feels like an hour before it gets to addressing it. And when it starts to, it tries to generate a sense of mystery - is it a clone or a son? More than likely, the audience have already guessed who he is and as it was highlighted in all the trailers and posters, the double comes as no big surprise. I know that sounds more like a fault of the advertising department, but when you have a sub-standard action film like this, and its only good idea (which has been done before anyway) is being used as the main selling point, then I would have to call out both the writers and whoever was in charge of advertising this film as the ones who were at fault.
One thing that's been discussed about this film from the start is the process of 'de-ageing' Smith. Some have praised it as a great technical achievement, while others have felt unconvinced. My view is that through the use of this relatively new technology, Smith has been successfully de-aged to his early twenties. I have been hard on this film but I have seen examples of good and bad digital de-ageing, and if I'm honest this has got to be one of the better ones. I am also aware that frame rates got a lot of talk leading up to the film's release. I don't know much on that subject, so all I will say is, I viewed it like I have viewed any other film, and it was perfectly fine.
Hans Zimmer collaborator Lorne Balfe composed the score, and within a few seconds of listening to the main theme it becomes more than clear he's taking a lot of influence from Zimmer, mainly the use of music that has an almost meditative feel to it. And considering what the film eventually turns into, no matter how high quality you're trying to make it by copying a very well respected composer, it can't help but feel out of place, and might be better suite to a different film.
So with Gemini Man we have a mostly wasted cast of talented individuals with only two actors showing any form of interest; a script that spent years being shopped around Hollywood, and when finally made it proved to be full of clichés; a potential saving grace in a reveal that was unfortunately used to be the film's main advertising point; one of 2019's better examples of the de-ageing process on Will Smith; and someone clearly looking to take the Hans Zimmer mantle with his score.
This was a movie with so much potential, and yet it had to go and be as bad as this. I have no idea what happened to make it turn out like this, I don't know if it's the film or its star, but one thing is clear, 2019 has definitely not been kind to Will Smith.
C+
Thank you for reading.
Here Will Smith stars as an ageing assassin who feels it is time to retire from his violent yet illustrious career. But these plans are ultimately put on hold when it becomes clear that his former employers want him dead, and are sending to do it, the one target he could successfully kill. Who just so happens to an exact copy of himself.
Will Smith plays both versions of himself with his signature likeability, but at the same time, and this is especially noticeable with the older one, he gives the impression that he's bored and would rather be somewhere else. But there are a few moments scattered throughout where it seems he might be showing signs of improvement. As for the younger one, he's very much in the same situation and even though he looks like a young Will Smith he's missing the essential charisma that made Smith's previous work so enjoyable and successful.
Clive Owen plays the villain and tries to add some intensity to his role, but despite his best efforts it just comes off as another clichéd villain part for him. As for Benedict Wong and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, they are completely wasted in their roles; and really just there to be two people to accompany Smith through the film's main events who are not his younger self or the villain, and who also won't become irrelevant or (more than likely) be killed off after one scene.
The script went through multiple writers, including the very talented Brain Heglaund. But the final product has three people given credit, one of whom originally pitched the film. The script is formulaic in every sense of the word, after a while you can see everything that's going to or could possibly happen a mile away. And when it comes time for the big reveal that the film has been waiting to show us, it doesn't feel particularly worth it, for many reasons. The first of which is some of the worst pacing I have experienced in a film all year, it takes what feels like an hour before it gets to addressing it. And when it starts to, it tries to generate a sense of mystery - is it a clone or a son? More than likely, the audience have already guessed who he is and as it was highlighted in all the trailers and posters, the double comes as no big surprise. I know that sounds more like a fault of the advertising department, but when you have a sub-standard action film like this, and its only good idea (which has been done before anyway) is being used as the main selling point, then I would have to call out both the writers and whoever was in charge of advertising this film as the ones who were at fault.
One thing that's been discussed about this film from the start is the process of 'de-ageing' Smith. Some have praised it as a great technical achievement, while others have felt unconvinced. My view is that through the use of this relatively new technology, Smith has been successfully de-aged to his early twenties. I have been hard on this film but I have seen examples of good and bad digital de-ageing, and if I'm honest this has got to be one of the better ones. I am also aware that frame rates got a lot of talk leading up to the film's release. I don't know much on that subject, so all I will say is, I viewed it like I have viewed any other film, and it was perfectly fine.
Hans Zimmer collaborator Lorne Balfe composed the score, and within a few seconds of listening to the main theme it becomes more than clear he's taking a lot of influence from Zimmer, mainly the use of music that has an almost meditative feel to it. And considering what the film eventually turns into, no matter how high quality you're trying to make it by copying a very well respected composer, it can't help but feel out of place, and might be better suite to a different film.
So with Gemini Man we have a mostly wasted cast of talented individuals with only two actors showing any form of interest; a script that spent years being shopped around Hollywood, and when finally made it proved to be full of clichés; a potential saving grace in a reveal that was unfortunately used to be the film's main advertising point; one of 2019's better examples of the de-ageing process on Will Smith; and someone clearly looking to take the Hans Zimmer mantle with his score.
This was a movie with so much potential, and yet it had to go and be as bad as this. I have no idea what happened to make it turn out like this, I don't know if it's the film or its star, but one thing is clear, 2019 has definitely not been kind to Will Smith.
C+
Thank you for reading.
Thursday, 10 October 2019
Joker Review
Ten years ago Todd Phillips directed the first of his Hangover trilogy, now he's directed Joker. Which has resulted in divisive reviews, walkouts, and even cinemas refusing to show it. Since I have seen it and have just about the right amount of information on it, let me lay it all out for you.
Firstly, it's set in 1981, in Gotham city obviously, but has no ties to any particular Batman story. Instead it goes for more of a not-so-subtle Scorsese influence.
The main character named Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is a clown for hire by day, and aspiring comedian by night. He has a condition that causes him to burst into fits of laugher at any time, and a series of setbacks in his professional life, and some shocks in his personal life, send him down a path that sees him turn into one of the most iconic villains of all time.
This film sets out to be different from all the other ones based on DC properties, and it succeeds, there's very little action, at least until the final few minutes; the fun sense of humour is gone; and it's replaced by a very dark and morbid one. The whole film's aesthetic is also very gritty, bleak and depressive, from the barely-lit interiors to the city of little to no sunshine. And of course there's the violence - which was minimal. And what does occur does feel like it's only there for shock value. But there are movies that have more violence in them, but just don't take it as seriously as this film does. If you want an idea of how graphically violent this movie, I can sum it up like this. It's less graphic than the film that influenced it most (Taxi Driver). All this is somewhat impressive, but due to DC studios' bad track record with their films, from which they have only recently started to recover, they have been up against the ever-growing popularity of MARVEL. It also can't help but feel pretentious and desperate. They have made it clear they want to do something very different with their films, but given the response to this one, maybe they should re-evaluate their strategy and take less drastic and smaller steps.
Phoenix isn't the only big name here, there's also Zazie Beetz as a single mother who may or may not be Arthur's girlfriend. She only appears in a handful of scenes, but plays her role well enough. There's also Brett Cullen who gives us a unique portrayal of Thomas Wayne. He comes across as quite capable in the role, but looking closer there's no escaping the fact this part was meant for Alec Baldwin. Bringing in Cullen as a last minute replacement, he feels like he's imitating Baldwin. Bryan Tyree Henry also has a role as an asylum clerk that feels thankless, it could have been played by anyone so it comes as no surprise that he seems uninterested and plays the part in a quite passive way.
Now on to the man himself, Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck AKA Joker. Phoenix immerses himself completely in the role with admirable dedication, but just seems very unlikeable and hard to sympathise with in any way. It also doesn't help that he goes off the rails so many times and so quickly that investment in his performance is nearly impossible.
Moving on to the script written by the director and Scott Silver, it's clear the script understands that this is about one main character and his standalone story in a very well-known world. Apart from some character names, other pieces of that world are used in surprising moderation. But then the problems show. This film's Scorsese influence eventually turns it into a rip-off a Taxi Driver, mainly due to the fact that both films deal with men slowly drifting into insanity. But the key difference with the two is, the protagonist of Taxi Driver actually seemed like he had at least a shred of decency in him, Arthur Fleck has none.
And just to bring the Scorsese connection full circle, Robert De Niro co-stars as a chat show host, who might just be the film's only likeable character and he's basically playing a homage to a character he played in another Scorsese film (The King of Comedy). He even admitted to that in interview.
On to the score composed by Hildur Guðnadóttir, and she has tried to use her skill as a cellist to create a score that's unsettling, and keeps the audience on its toes. But after a while you adjust and it loses the unsettling feeling that it had in the beginning.
This film claims to have a message about what role society might have in creating a psychopath like Joker, but if that is the message, it's not as clear as it thinks it is.
The way I view Joker is this, its got ambitions that maybe cross the line into being pretentious, dedicated but too off the rails and an unlikeable performance from the lead actor. And while promising its own story, it has maybe taken a bit much from the films that influenced it. As I said before, is this the way DC studios want to move forward? Maybe they should re-evaluate their position first.
In future if anyone ever asks me what I thought of this film, the only answer I can hope to give is that it gave me only negative thoughts.
C-
Firstly, it's set in 1981, in Gotham city obviously, but has no ties to any particular Batman story. Instead it goes for more of a not-so-subtle Scorsese influence.
The main character named Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) is a clown for hire by day, and aspiring comedian by night. He has a condition that causes him to burst into fits of laugher at any time, and a series of setbacks in his professional life, and some shocks in his personal life, send him down a path that sees him turn into one of the most iconic villains of all time.
This film sets out to be different from all the other ones based on DC properties, and it succeeds, there's very little action, at least until the final few minutes; the fun sense of humour is gone; and it's replaced by a very dark and morbid one. The whole film's aesthetic is also very gritty, bleak and depressive, from the barely-lit interiors to the city of little to no sunshine. And of course there's the violence - which was minimal. And what does occur does feel like it's only there for shock value. But there are movies that have more violence in them, but just don't take it as seriously as this film does. If you want an idea of how graphically violent this movie, I can sum it up like this. It's less graphic than the film that influenced it most (Taxi Driver). All this is somewhat impressive, but due to DC studios' bad track record with their films, from which they have only recently started to recover, they have been up against the ever-growing popularity of MARVEL. It also can't help but feel pretentious and desperate. They have made it clear they want to do something very different with their films, but given the response to this one, maybe they should re-evaluate their strategy and take less drastic and smaller steps.
Phoenix isn't the only big name here, there's also Zazie Beetz as a single mother who may or may not be Arthur's girlfriend. She only appears in a handful of scenes, but plays her role well enough. There's also Brett Cullen who gives us a unique portrayal of Thomas Wayne. He comes across as quite capable in the role, but looking closer there's no escaping the fact this part was meant for Alec Baldwin. Bringing in Cullen as a last minute replacement, he feels like he's imitating Baldwin. Bryan Tyree Henry also has a role as an asylum clerk that feels thankless, it could have been played by anyone so it comes as no surprise that he seems uninterested and plays the part in a quite passive way.
Now on to the man himself, Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck AKA Joker. Phoenix immerses himself completely in the role with admirable dedication, but just seems very unlikeable and hard to sympathise with in any way. It also doesn't help that he goes off the rails so many times and so quickly that investment in his performance is nearly impossible.
Moving on to the script written by the director and Scott Silver, it's clear the script understands that this is about one main character and his standalone story in a very well-known world. Apart from some character names, other pieces of that world are used in surprising moderation. But then the problems show. This film's Scorsese influence eventually turns it into a rip-off a Taxi Driver, mainly due to the fact that both films deal with men slowly drifting into insanity. But the key difference with the two is, the protagonist of Taxi Driver actually seemed like he had at least a shred of decency in him, Arthur Fleck has none.
And just to bring the Scorsese connection full circle, Robert De Niro co-stars as a chat show host, who might just be the film's only likeable character and he's basically playing a homage to a character he played in another Scorsese film (The King of Comedy). He even admitted to that in interview.
On to the score composed by Hildur Guðnadóttir, and she has tried to use her skill as a cellist to create a score that's unsettling, and keeps the audience on its toes. But after a while you adjust and it loses the unsettling feeling that it had in the beginning.
This film claims to have a message about what role society might have in creating a psychopath like Joker, but if that is the message, it's not as clear as it thinks it is.
The way I view Joker is this, its got ambitions that maybe cross the line into being pretentious, dedicated but too off the rails and an unlikeable performance from the lead actor. And while promising its own story, it has maybe taken a bit much from the films that influenced it. As I said before, is this the way DC studios want to move forward? Maybe they should re-evaluate their position first.
In future if anyone ever asks me what I thought of this film, the only answer I can hope to give is that it gave me only negative thoughts.
C-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)