IT Chapter Two is the much anticipated second part to Andy Muschietti's adaption of the best-selling novel by Stephen King. And the plot this time revolves around all the members of the losers' club all returning to Derry to fight Pennywise the Dancing Clown, and hopefully put an end to him once and for all, while also dealing with forgotten memories and some unresolved issues of their childhoods.
Obviously we have a new cast playing the adult versions of the main characters, talents like James McAvoy, Jessica Chastain and Bill Hader and a few others that are not as well known. I feel slightly conflicted about the performances, as no one really stands out on their own, but when they're all together the on-screen chemistry was very convincing. And I'm also aware of all the praise being directed at Hader, but I just see him as the comedic one in the group, who does get serious once or twice but they all do at some point. I really wasn't too sure how or where he was supposed to be giving this great standout performance. And in the matter of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise, I take no pleasure in reporting that whatever it was that made him so effective in the first one, is long gone here and he's only good for cheap jump scares.
In some flashback sequences the original cast have been digitally de-aged. They can still play their characters well though, and you really only notice it if you know what to look for... and then notice some people seem taller than others! There's also a really enjoyable cameo that if anyone gets confused at, then why did you see this film?
Gary Dauberman returns to write the script and for all those people who complain of adaptations not being faithful (mostly) to the source material, this will please them as this script is very faithful to the book in quite a lot of ways.
The first few minutes refamiliarise us with the film's idea of violence and intensity in a very brutal way, before rushing through character introductions. But we do believe it's the same people, just older. So the film can get its characters where they need to be so that things can get going. Once things do start to pick up, a pattern starts to show and that pattern goes something like this: scary scene, pleasant flashback, scary scene, two characters talking in the present. Sometimes it's slightly altered to feel different, but looking back it's really not. And of course this film being nearly three hours long, scenes drag and you can most certainly feel it. The scares are also weaker as well; I wasn't big on them in first film, but here after a while I just stopped caring when the signs of a scare were impending. I will commend this script on its faithfulness to the source material, understanding of character and world. But I must condemn it for weaker scares and an overabundance of dragged-out scenes.
While nothing stands out in the cinematography, one thing that has to be mentioned is what I felt was a sincere effort to recreate key environments from the novel. These include the lair of Pennywise, the Chinese restaurant and the run-down Marsh home. They look just as they are described in the book, with every little detail included.
Benjamin Wallfisch returns to compose the score for the film, but he mostly just recycles what people liked from his first score, you can especially hear the music from the first one's opening scene in this film quite a few times. Which I have no problem with, but it does show perhaps a lack fresh ideas, and that is what I have a problem with.
If this film has any unforgivable flaws it's this: when broken down this is a very simple story. Characters reunite and have some rather horrific moments along the way, with the addition of a few very talkative scenes. This all leads up to a final confrontation with the story's main villain, then they all leave and the story's over. All of these were done back in 1990 with the second half of the miniseries all done in just over an hour and a half. But here it's nearly three hours for little to no reason. The first one was just over two hours and did that fine, but the excuse that had is, being the first it had quite a bit more to set up. This film's bloated runtime is inexcusable and if it were shortened to just the important stuff, you would probably have a film the same length or a minute or two longer than the first.
IT Chapter Two succeeds with a cast who don't stand out on their own but show great chemistry when together. There's a villain who has unfortunately lost his touch. A script that rushes past important moments and lets other scenes go on for far too long, and is filled with far too many weak scares. It somewhat redeems itself in being faithful to the source material - nothing stands out visually but the levels of detail that have been put into recreating locations from the book are certainly praiseworthy. And despite the talented Benjamin Wallfisch returning, he does very little here beyond recycle his work from the first film. And the film is unforgivably flawed in having in inexcusable runtime for a very simple story.
And to think this was my most anticipated film of the year, I'm not pleased at all! But I am glad that it's over with now. I'm just going to worry about Doctor Sleep and Salem's Lot now which I just found out about, if anyone ever asks me about this film, I will always give the same answer, I didn't like the ending.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account. I'm going to give IT chapter two...
C+
Thank you for reading.
Monday, 16 September 2019
Thursday, 15 August 2019
Once Upon A Time In Hollywood Review
Quentin Tarantino is back with Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, his ninth feature film, which of course features a huge ensemble cast that includes Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, Margot Robbie, Al Pacino, and countless others.
The film takes place over three days in 1960s Los Angeles, and is about how a TV actor and his stuntman are struggling hard to stay relevant, and how other film stars and the people around them also navigate the world of the film industry. And of course we also have Charles Manson and his cult as a kind of backdrop.
The cast features a host of talent like the names above plus many more including some Tarantino regulars. All try to make the best of what they're given but it doesn't all work as well as it should. DiCaprio is good in his role, but fails to make much impact. Robbie unfortunately suffers a similar fate, despite playing a person who is crucial to the Charles Manson story. The well-recognised talents of Al Pacino are wasted and in the few scenes he's in, he feels reduced to nothing more than a presence. Brad Pitt as the stunt double was the only performance in the film I could call believable. He brought likeability and a good sense of humour to his role, and managed to somewhat save DiCaprio's performance by a small amount by demonstrating a believable chemistry with him.
This is of course written by Tarantino and one would anticipate that it's the kind of film he should have no problem with. He can pay tribute to old cinema, he can have moments where we see films within a film based on the exploitation genre. And of course he can have all the graphic violence and heavy profanity he wants.
But I take no pleasure in saying that mainly due to the writing, this feels less like a Tarantino film and more like a 1960s period drama with a style that strongly tries to resemble Tarantino. One of the script's faults is that it's full of scenes with very little to say that's interesting, scenes that go on for far too long that need to either be shortened or have worthwhile dialogue in them. I was just left waiting for something that was going to grab my attention and invest me in the plot, and for a long while, there was nothing that kept my interest.
Another failure of the script is that the characters are not that interesting or likeable. Only one character meets those criteria and I think it's fairly easy to see why. Also with Manson there were a whole range of possibilities that were never explored, such as what happened with Steve McQueen on the night of the killings? I think someone like Tarantino really could have had fun with this. Then there's Manson himself, who shows up once and we never really see him again. And it's not even until near the end of the film, during an encounter with the Manson family, that the film finally begins to look like a Tarantino film. Were those final moments enjoyable? Yes. Will it help the experience it you were bored by the rest of the film? Probably not.
Like many of Tarantino's films, this one has a very retro soundtrack, which I feel is intended to make the 1960s setting all the more credible. Here we have musicians like Aretha Franklin, Deep Purple, The Rolling Stones and The Mamas and The Papas. A well-chosen soundtrack with some very well-liked songs. But I suspect that Tarantino knew about last year's film Bad Times at the El Royale. Not just for the fact that it was also set in the 1960s and had a more charismatic Manson rip-off played by Chris Hemsworth. But the fact that the same song plays in both films when cult-related things start to happen in the film's final minutes. I know it's a small detail, but when you notice that similarity as quickly as I did, it's hard not to raise an eyebrow. There is also another song that is played in both this film and El Royale, but the scences in which they are played are slightly different, so I will be merciful and overlook it.
I do respect Tarantino for trying something that feels so far out of his comfort zone, and his passion for the project is clear. But here we have wasted performances by hugely talented actors where only one really stands out, overlong scenes filled with uninteresting characters and equally boring dialogue. Great potential wasted throughout. And a soundtrack which, while impressive, does have one part that does seem a bit recycled from another film.
And with that, I give Once Upon A Time In Hollywood...
C
Thank you for reading.
The film takes place over three days in 1960s Los Angeles, and is about how a TV actor and his stuntman are struggling hard to stay relevant, and how other film stars and the people around them also navigate the world of the film industry. And of course we also have Charles Manson and his cult as a kind of backdrop.
The cast features a host of talent like the names above plus many more including some Tarantino regulars. All try to make the best of what they're given but it doesn't all work as well as it should. DiCaprio is good in his role, but fails to make much impact. Robbie unfortunately suffers a similar fate, despite playing a person who is crucial to the Charles Manson story. The well-recognised talents of Al Pacino are wasted and in the few scenes he's in, he feels reduced to nothing more than a presence. Brad Pitt as the stunt double was the only performance in the film I could call believable. He brought likeability and a good sense of humour to his role, and managed to somewhat save DiCaprio's performance by a small amount by demonstrating a believable chemistry with him.
This is of course written by Tarantino and one would anticipate that it's the kind of film he should have no problem with. He can pay tribute to old cinema, he can have moments where we see films within a film based on the exploitation genre. And of course he can have all the graphic violence and heavy profanity he wants.
But I take no pleasure in saying that mainly due to the writing, this feels less like a Tarantino film and more like a 1960s period drama with a style that strongly tries to resemble Tarantino. One of the script's faults is that it's full of scenes with very little to say that's interesting, scenes that go on for far too long that need to either be shortened or have worthwhile dialogue in them. I was just left waiting for something that was going to grab my attention and invest me in the plot, and for a long while, there was nothing that kept my interest.
Another failure of the script is that the characters are not that interesting or likeable. Only one character meets those criteria and I think it's fairly easy to see why. Also with Manson there were a whole range of possibilities that were never explored, such as what happened with Steve McQueen on the night of the killings? I think someone like Tarantino really could have had fun with this. Then there's Manson himself, who shows up once and we never really see him again. And it's not even until near the end of the film, during an encounter with the Manson family, that the film finally begins to look like a Tarantino film. Were those final moments enjoyable? Yes. Will it help the experience it you were bored by the rest of the film? Probably not.
Like many of Tarantino's films, this one has a very retro soundtrack, which I feel is intended to make the 1960s setting all the more credible. Here we have musicians like Aretha Franklin, Deep Purple, The Rolling Stones and The Mamas and The Papas. A well-chosen soundtrack with some very well-liked songs. But I suspect that Tarantino knew about last year's film Bad Times at the El Royale. Not just for the fact that it was also set in the 1960s and had a more charismatic Manson rip-off played by Chris Hemsworth. But the fact that the same song plays in both films when cult-related things start to happen in the film's final minutes. I know it's a small detail, but when you notice that similarity as quickly as I did, it's hard not to raise an eyebrow. There is also another song that is played in both this film and El Royale, but the scences in which they are played are slightly different, so I will be merciful and overlook it.
I do respect Tarantino for trying something that feels so far out of his comfort zone, and his passion for the project is clear. But here we have wasted performances by hugely talented actors where only one really stands out, overlong scenes filled with uninteresting characters and equally boring dialogue. Great potential wasted throughout. And a soundtrack which, while impressive, does have one part that does seem a bit recycled from another film.
And with that, I give Once Upon A Time In Hollywood...
C
Thank you for reading.
Saturday, 10 August 2019
Blinded By The Light Review
Blinded by The Light was directed by Gurinder Chadha and stars Vivek Kalra, Hayley Atwell, Rob Brydon, Kulvinder Ghir, Neil Williams, Dean-Charles Chapman and Aaron Phagura.
The plot revolves around a teenager who writes poetry as a way of dealing with the very difficualt life around him. But his life changes when through a classmate he is introducued to the music of Bruce Springsteen. And through the music he finds a way to express himself in his own voice and maybe even find a way of achieving his dreams.
The performances were fine and many of the actors were clearly invested in the film. But all the characters being portrayed all felt either clichéd or exaggerated in some scenes. And despite the best efforts of lead actor Viveik Karla as Javid, although he does have moments where he shows great potential he fails to use that potential to enrich his performance. I instead we are left with what feels like a standard likeability, common to the protagonists of this genre of films. I do think there is talent here, it just not being put to good use.
The film was written by Paul Mayeda Burges, Gurinder Chada and Sarfeaz Manoor. They succeed in making the film feel like a success story with a slightly musical twist, told from an unusual point of view. But they do miss the opportunity to address things that might have made their film a bit more interesting and noteworthy, and when these things are given some attention it feels like a subplot with minimal effort put in. The script is far from perfect, it understands its basic ideas. But if it's going to have any kind of subplot that relates to the main plot in any way, it should at least have the decency to seem equally committed to both.
The film was shot by Ben Smithard, and while most of the shots are nothing noteworthy there was one visual choice that stood out to me, and that was when Javid is listening to songs on his Walkman and the lyrics sometimes appear on-screen. But some of them are singled out and I thought this was an interesting way to point out which words are supposed to mean something of importance to this character.
The score was composed by A.R. Rahman. Unfortunately while I'm sure his score was of a high standard, It was hard for me to take any notice of it, most likely due to its being overshadowed by the constant use of popular eighties songs - not just those of Bruce Springsteen, but bands like Pet Shop Boys, and Mental As Anything also get songs played. I think most of them just help to make the 80s setting seem authentic. This is all very well but the downside that Springsteen gets less attention, which is unfortunate given how much of a role his music plays in the film. The use of all these songs from this particular period just takes your attention away from what might actually be a very good score.
The one flaw that affected my enjoyment of this film was that it felt like it went on for far too long, there were things that maybe were important to the plot but chose to get to them in a very slow paced fashion. It also doesn't help that there's one scene in a club that just comes off as needless and a way to fill up the nearly two hour runtime. And by the time the film was almost over, I had very little attention left for it.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Blinded By The Light has fine performances, with potential evident in its lead; a script that achieves its core aims but dismisses the opportunity to address subjects that might make it a bit more interesting; no standout shots in the cinematography, but one interesting visual choice; and a score that is sadly overshadowed by a constant of use of eighties songs by artists other than the intended subject of the film; and is seriously flawed in being too long and trying to justify its length with scenes that don't advance any aspects of the film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Blinded By The Light...
C-
Thank You For Reading.
The plot revolves around a teenager who writes poetry as a way of dealing with the very difficualt life around him. But his life changes when through a classmate he is introducued to the music of Bruce Springsteen. And through the music he finds a way to express himself in his own voice and maybe even find a way of achieving his dreams.
The performances were fine and many of the actors were clearly invested in the film. But all the characters being portrayed all felt either clichéd or exaggerated in some scenes. And despite the best efforts of lead actor Viveik Karla as Javid, although he does have moments where he shows great potential he fails to use that potential to enrich his performance. I instead we are left with what feels like a standard likeability, common to the protagonists of this genre of films. I do think there is talent here, it just not being put to good use.
The film was written by Paul Mayeda Burges, Gurinder Chada and Sarfeaz Manoor. They succeed in making the film feel like a success story with a slightly musical twist, told from an unusual point of view. But they do miss the opportunity to address things that might have made their film a bit more interesting and noteworthy, and when these things are given some attention it feels like a subplot with minimal effort put in. The script is far from perfect, it understands its basic ideas. But if it's going to have any kind of subplot that relates to the main plot in any way, it should at least have the decency to seem equally committed to both.
The film was shot by Ben Smithard, and while most of the shots are nothing noteworthy there was one visual choice that stood out to me, and that was when Javid is listening to songs on his Walkman and the lyrics sometimes appear on-screen. But some of them are singled out and I thought this was an interesting way to point out which words are supposed to mean something of importance to this character.
The score was composed by A.R. Rahman. Unfortunately while I'm sure his score was of a high standard, It was hard for me to take any notice of it, most likely due to its being overshadowed by the constant use of popular eighties songs - not just those of Bruce Springsteen, but bands like Pet Shop Boys, and Mental As Anything also get songs played. I think most of them just help to make the 80s setting seem authentic. This is all very well but the downside that Springsteen gets less attention, which is unfortunate given how much of a role his music plays in the film. The use of all these songs from this particular period just takes your attention away from what might actually be a very good score.
The one flaw that affected my enjoyment of this film was that it felt like it went on for far too long, there were things that maybe were important to the plot but chose to get to them in a very slow paced fashion. It also doesn't help that there's one scene in a club that just comes off as needless and a way to fill up the nearly two hour runtime. And by the time the film was almost over, I had very little attention left for it.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Blinded By The Light has fine performances, with potential evident in its lead; a script that achieves its core aims but dismisses the opportunity to address subjects that might make it a bit more interesting; no standout shots in the cinematography, but one interesting visual choice; and a score that is sadly overshadowed by a constant of use of eighties songs by artists other than the intended subject of the film; and is seriously flawed in being too long and trying to justify its length with scenes that don't advance any aspects of the film.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Blinded By The Light...
C-
Thank You For Reading.
Saturday, 3 August 2019
Hobbs And Shaw Review
Hobbs And Shaw was directed by David Leitch and stars Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Idris Elba, Vanessa Kirby and Helen Mirren.
The plot concerns the theft of a virus by a cybernetically-enhanced terrorist, and with very little options left, former FBI agent Luke Hobbs and Deckard Shaw are forced to team up to try and put a stop to the plans of a seemingly unstoppable villain.
The performances are good but unfortunately do not reach their full potential, Johnson and Statham play their characters well, but the chemistry shift from understandably hostile to acting like friends happens so abruptly that it lacks believability and just feels unnatural. Idris Elba unfortunately gives a very one-note performance that's quite clichéd and lacks in range and as a whole feels like a waste for someone with Elba's talents.
The film was written by Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce and it's very clear from their script that they understand what this film is. There's humorous dialogue between characters, multiple car chases and over the top action scenes. But what stood out to me about the script was the great amount of effort put in to flesh out some of the story's main characters. It gives them interesting reasons for doing what they do, and sheds light on some of their unexplored pasts. I would say that this script keeps what the fans love but does go in some slightly unexpected directions that for the most part work in its favour.
The film was shot by Jonathan Sela. While the shots are unremarkable, if any of them are going to be considered noteworthy, I would have to go with the ones that pan across a country landscape, as it's a relatively nice look at many different locations and acts as an effective backdrop for anything that is about to occur in the film. There's also a somewhat amusing visual sequence at the beginning where we see the morning routines of the two leading characters side by side. I thought it was amusing in the moment, but slipped my mind quite easily.
The score was composed by Tyler Bates, and it's easily forgettable with a heavy use of electronic music being the only thing that stands out. There are also a few popular songs that maybe fit well with the film's tone but failed to leave a lasting impression on me.
The one flaw that severely damaged my experience with this film would be its very apparent pacing issues. Especially in the first act, while the audience is waiting for the main story to get underway, the build-up (while mildly entertaining) is just really slowly paced and parts of it need to be cut. And the climactic fight at end is also a perfect example of this film's pacing issues.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Hobbs and Shaw has good performances but rushed character chemistry; a talented but wasted actor playing the villain; a good script that sticks to what fans of this franchise love, but also has some ideas of its own that it explores; some nice panning shots across landscapes; a score that's only made memorable by the heavy use of electronic music; and is severely flawed by inexcusable pacing issues that occur more than once and make the film feel longer than it actually is.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, im going to give Hobbs and Shaw...
C+
Thank you for reading.
The plot concerns the theft of a virus by a cybernetically-enhanced terrorist, and with very little options left, former FBI agent Luke Hobbs and Deckard Shaw are forced to team up to try and put a stop to the plans of a seemingly unstoppable villain.
The performances are good but unfortunately do not reach their full potential, Johnson and Statham play their characters well, but the chemistry shift from understandably hostile to acting like friends happens so abruptly that it lacks believability and just feels unnatural. Idris Elba unfortunately gives a very one-note performance that's quite clichéd and lacks in range and as a whole feels like a waste for someone with Elba's talents.
The film was written by Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce and it's very clear from their script that they understand what this film is. There's humorous dialogue between characters, multiple car chases and over the top action scenes. But what stood out to me about the script was the great amount of effort put in to flesh out some of the story's main characters. It gives them interesting reasons for doing what they do, and sheds light on some of their unexplored pasts. I would say that this script keeps what the fans love but does go in some slightly unexpected directions that for the most part work in its favour.
The film was shot by Jonathan Sela. While the shots are unremarkable, if any of them are going to be considered noteworthy, I would have to go with the ones that pan across a country landscape, as it's a relatively nice look at many different locations and acts as an effective backdrop for anything that is about to occur in the film. There's also a somewhat amusing visual sequence at the beginning where we see the morning routines of the two leading characters side by side. I thought it was amusing in the moment, but slipped my mind quite easily.
The score was composed by Tyler Bates, and it's easily forgettable with a heavy use of electronic music being the only thing that stands out. There are also a few popular songs that maybe fit well with the film's tone but failed to leave a lasting impression on me.
The one flaw that severely damaged my experience with this film would be its very apparent pacing issues. Especially in the first act, while the audience is waiting for the main story to get underway, the build-up (while mildly entertaining) is just really slowly paced and parts of it need to be cut. And the climactic fight at end is also a perfect example of this film's pacing issues.
The conclusions I draw from this are that: Hobbs and Shaw has good performances but rushed character chemistry; a talented but wasted actor playing the villain; a good script that sticks to what fans of this franchise love, but also has some ideas of its own that it explores; some nice panning shots across landscapes; a score that's only made memorable by the heavy use of electronic music; and is severely flawed by inexcusable pacing issues that occur more than once and make the film feel longer than it actually is.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, im going to give Hobbs and Shaw...
C+
Thank you for reading.
Saturday, 27 July 2019
The Current War Review
The Current War was directed by Alfonso Gomez-Rejon and stars Benedict Cumberbatch, Michael Shannon, Katherine Waterson, Tom Holland, Tuppence Middleton, Matthew Macfadyen and Nicholas Hoult.
The plot revolves around the race by scientists Thomas Edison, and partners George Westinghouse and Nikolai Tesla, to produce a form of electricity that's cheap and safe, so that it can go on to power the world.
For performances, Cumberbatch as Edison certainly makes himself stand out reasonably well. He manages to pull off an American accent quite well and demonstrates that this kind of character can be someone the audience is supposed to root for and like one minute, then maybe not be so sure about the next. Tom Holland was fine, his character was fairly likeable and had a very believable dynamic with Cumberbatch. Michael Shannon as Westinghouse was just average, I know what Shannon is capable of as an actor, it's just that here he didn't really live up to those standards. And lastly Nicholas Hoult as Tesla didn't really stand out to me in any way. It just felt like he was trying to prove some kind of versatility by having seemingly perfected a Serbian accent
The film was written by Matthew Mitnick and what stood out to me about the script was how it took its subject matter and the principal people involved and told their story in a way that was informed but not too complicated. I think that was a good choice because it means that those who are experts on the subject matter of this film can go and see it and be satisfied with its depiction; but it's also prepared to cater to the needs of those who don't know too much about the scientific aspects of the film. I would call this an impressive script that addresses its subject matter in a very crowd-pleasing way.
The film was shot by Chung-hoon Chung, and most of his shots for the film are fine, there's one standout shot right at the start of a group of people walking around in darkness. In a way it summed up what the film was going to be about. There are also some strange visual choices at times, being mostly just strip-shaped pictures of animals that come out of nowhere. And I'm sure I saw some editing choices in the film that resembled fast cutting. I know I said something similar in a recent review, but fast cuts in a period drama are beyond out of place and they feel slightly disorientating.
The score was composed by Hauschka and Dustin O`Halloran, and to my disappointment their work failed to impress. It just sounds like another generic period drama score with barely noticeable sounds occasionally put in that are meant to help to give it some form of distinction that it unfortunately does not achieve. It's also very forgettable, but with period drama scores it's a situation where once you have heard one, you have heard them all.
The one flaw that severely damaged my viewing experience with this film is that it was very slow at times, and despite a somewhat well-paced opening it eventually slowed down, scenes dragged on for far too long and it mostly got boring. And the pacing becomes such a problem to a point where it becomes a struggle just to stay invested in the film and its story.
The conclusions that I draw from this are that: The Current War has good performances; a script that manages to be both impressive and crowd-pleasing; one standout shot in the cinematography that sets up the film well, along with some noteworthy visuals; and a very generic score that's very easily forgettable.. But it's severely flawed in its terribly slow pacing and fails to maintain what was a relatively well-paced start.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give The Current War...
C-
Thank you for reading.
The plot revolves around the race by scientists Thomas Edison, and partners George Westinghouse and Nikolai Tesla, to produce a form of electricity that's cheap and safe, so that it can go on to power the world.
For performances, Cumberbatch as Edison certainly makes himself stand out reasonably well. He manages to pull off an American accent quite well and demonstrates that this kind of character can be someone the audience is supposed to root for and like one minute, then maybe not be so sure about the next. Tom Holland was fine, his character was fairly likeable and had a very believable dynamic with Cumberbatch. Michael Shannon as Westinghouse was just average, I know what Shannon is capable of as an actor, it's just that here he didn't really live up to those standards. And lastly Nicholas Hoult as Tesla didn't really stand out to me in any way. It just felt like he was trying to prove some kind of versatility by having seemingly perfected a Serbian accent
The film was written by Matthew Mitnick and what stood out to me about the script was how it took its subject matter and the principal people involved and told their story in a way that was informed but not too complicated. I think that was a good choice because it means that those who are experts on the subject matter of this film can go and see it and be satisfied with its depiction; but it's also prepared to cater to the needs of those who don't know too much about the scientific aspects of the film. I would call this an impressive script that addresses its subject matter in a very crowd-pleasing way.
The film was shot by Chung-hoon Chung, and most of his shots for the film are fine, there's one standout shot right at the start of a group of people walking around in darkness. In a way it summed up what the film was going to be about. There are also some strange visual choices at times, being mostly just strip-shaped pictures of animals that come out of nowhere. And I'm sure I saw some editing choices in the film that resembled fast cutting. I know I said something similar in a recent review, but fast cuts in a period drama are beyond out of place and they feel slightly disorientating.
The score was composed by Hauschka and Dustin O`Halloran, and to my disappointment their work failed to impress. It just sounds like another generic period drama score with barely noticeable sounds occasionally put in that are meant to help to give it some form of distinction that it unfortunately does not achieve. It's also very forgettable, but with period drama scores it's a situation where once you have heard one, you have heard them all.
The one flaw that severely damaged my viewing experience with this film is that it was very slow at times, and despite a somewhat well-paced opening it eventually slowed down, scenes dragged on for far too long and it mostly got boring. And the pacing becomes such a problem to a point where it becomes a struggle just to stay invested in the film and its story.
The conclusions that I draw from this are that: The Current War has good performances; a script that manages to be both impressive and crowd-pleasing; one standout shot in the cinematography that sets up the film well, along with some noteworthy visuals; and a very generic score that's very easily forgettable.. But it's severely flawed in its terribly slow pacing and fails to maintain what was a relatively well-paced start.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give The Current War...
C-
Thank you for reading.
Saturday, 20 July 2019
The Lion King Review
The Lion King is directed by Jon Favreau and features the voices of Donald Glover, Seth Rogen, Chitwel Ejifor, Alfre Woodward, Billy Eichner, John Kani, John Oliver, Beyoncé Knowles Carter and James Earl Jones as the voice of Mufasa.
The plot is about a young lion whose destiny to be king is put in danger following a tragedy which leads to him being exiled, and years later as an adult he must find a way to take back his kingdom and his rightful place as king.
The performances are unfortunately quite poor, James Earl Jones brings proming charm and likeability to the role of Mufasa, despite playing the same character and saying almost exactly the same lines as over twenty years ago. Chitwel Ejifor tries (and fails) to bring any sense of personality beyond that of a conventional villain, and he's quite easy to ignore. Another notable performance is John Oliver as Zazu. He makes no particular effort to try and do his own take on the character, but instead spends most of the film trying way too hard to sound like the original voice actor. And it gets to the point where it becomes so obvious that's what he's doing that it just becomes distracting.
The film was written by Jeff Nathanson and what stood out to me most about the script was how everything stayed the same as the original, in a shot for shot manner. From famous scenes, to the dialogue, to the songs. All of them just about stay untouched. And the changes that are made to the film are so minimal, being only a few lines and some scenes being stretched out to meet the film's longer runtime. I just see it as a script with more copying put into to it than actual hard work and effort.
The film was shot by Caleb Deschanel, and this film does somewhat redeem itself with the visuals. Although there's no standout moment for the cinematography you can't deny that film's visuals are quite impressive - Pride Rock looks surprisingly good and has a documentary-like look to it. The animals look striking too, you can see every little detail on some of them. And the actors portraying them do try to get their facial expressions across clearly, sometimes it works, others times they just say what they're feeling but you don't see it. If things like this are going to continue, it will need some more work, but this is a good start.
The score was composed by Hans Zimmer and most of his score just feels recycled from the previous film, and the songs as mentioned before are much the same but if you listen carefully you will hear one or two modern touches that have been put in. Once again this shows a disappointing lack of effort and what makes it even more disappointing is that this is the work of a highly-regarded composer, and here he has failed where he usually succeeds.
You would think all of the things mentioned above would have diminished my experience with this film but there was one flaw that trumped all the others, the film's lack of original ideas. Now I do understand what a remake is, it's been done before and some things must and usually do remain the same. But that doesn't mean that you can't bring some ideas of your own to it. I've seen it done well and I've seen it attempted and maybe it didn't get the outcome it hoped for. I recently saw a remake that did have some of its own ideas; it didn't entirely work out in its favour, but at least it tried. With remakes I suggest that some original ideas should maybe be tried instead of avoided, just so audiences don't get a film that's a longer version of something they have already seen.
The conclusions I draw from this are: The Lion King has poor voice performances; a mostly recycled script and the lack of effort is quite evident; with minimal new dialogue and a stretched-out runtime being the only notable changes; some visuals that are quite impressive but need work done to them; a a score that feels recycled and attempts to compensate for its laziness in a way that's maybe just as bad; and worst of all, lacking in original ideas.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give The Lion King...
D
Thank you for reading.
The plot is about a young lion whose destiny to be king is put in danger following a tragedy which leads to him being exiled, and years later as an adult he must find a way to take back his kingdom and his rightful place as king.
The performances are unfortunately quite poor, James Earl Jones brings proming charm and likeability to the role of Mufasa, despite playing the same character and saying almost exactly the same lines as over twenty years ago. Chitwel Ejifor tries (and fails) to bring any sense of personality beyond that of a conventional villain, and he's quite easy to ignore. Another notable performance is John Oliver as Zazu. He makes no particular effort to try and do his own take on the character, but instead spends most of the film trying way too hard to sound like the original voice actor. And it gets to the point where it becomes so obvious that's what he's doing that it just becomes distracting.
The film was written by Jeff Nathanson and what stood out to me most about the script was how everything stayed the same as the original, in a shot for shot manner. From famous scenes, to the dialogue, to the songs. All of them just about stay untouched. And the changes that are made to the film are so minimal, being only a few lines and some scenes being stretched out to meet the film's longer runtime. I just see it as a script with more copying put into to it than actual hard work and effort.
The film was shot by Caleb Deschanel, and this film does somewhat redeem itself with the visuals. Although there's no standout moment for the cinematography you can't deny that film's visuals are quite impressive - Pride Rock looks surprisingly good and has a documentary-like look to it. The animals look striking too, you can see every little detail on some of them. And the actors portraying them do try to get their facial expressions across clearly, sometimes it works, others times they just say what they're feeling but you don't see it. If things like this are going to continue, it will need some more work, but this is a good start.
The score was composed by Hans Zimmer and most of his score just feels recycled from the previous film, and the songs as mentioned before are much the same but if you listen carefully you will hear one or two modern touches that have been put in. Once again this shows a disappointing lack of effort and what makes it even more disappointing is that this is the work of a highly-regarded composer, and here he has failed where he usually succeeds.
You would think all of the things mentioned above would have diminished my experience with this film but there was one flaw that trumped all the others, the film's lack of original ideas. Now I do understand what a remake is, it's been done before and some things must and usually do remain the same. But that doesn't mean that you can't bring some ideas of your own to it. I've seen it done well and I've seen it attempted and maybe it didn't get the outcome it hoped for. I recently saw a remake that did have some of its own ideas; it didn't entirely work out in its favour, but at least it tried. With remakes I suggest that some original ideas should maybe be tried instead of avoided, just so audiences don't get a film that's a longer version of something they have already seen.
The conclusions I draw from this are: The Lion King has poor voice performances; a mostly recycled script and the lack of effort is quite evident; with minimal new dialogue and a stretched-out runtime being the only notable changes; some visuals that are quite impressive but need work done to them; a a score that feels recycled and attempts to compensate for its laziness in a way that's maybe just as bad; and worst of all, lacking in original ideas.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give The Lion King...
D
Thank you for reading.
Monday, 15 July 2019
Stuber Review
Stuber was directed by Michael Dowse and stars Kumail Nanjiani, Dave Bautista, Iko Uwais, Natalie Morales, Betty Gilpin, Jimmy Tatro, Mira Sorvino and Karen Gillan.
The film is about a dedicated but relentless detective who enlists the help of an average Uber driver when he has the chance to bring down the criminal who killed his partner. But of course difficulties occur along the way, mostly stemming from how different the two men are, and they have to overcome those differences if they are to work together so that one can do his job while maintaining the reputation that he holds quite dear.
The performances are fine, but Nanjiani and Bautista effortlessly stand out. They do play the roles in a clichéd fashion but have an undeniable chemistry and Bautista especially shows commitment to his role, with often comedic presence and at times scene-stealing charisma. Nanjina does have moments too, but beyond the characters' chemistry it felt like he was really just there to give reactions of shock to anything that was happening around him. And also adapting to one situation after another which really was only funny with him once or twice.
The film was written by Tripper Clancy and on paper feels like a very generic buddy cop film, but the script keeps everything moving at a brisk pace, with often funny dialogue and over the top action sequences. And there is at times a feeling of self awareness, of the film knowing how silly it is and not taking itself too seriously. When things get even slightly dramatic, that feeling of comedic tone is still there. I thought of the script as an interesting way to do a film that feels conventional, but all the right steps seem to have been taken to keep it from slowing down and getting boring.
The film was shot by Bobby Shore and most of the shots are fine if unmemorable. But the one shot that somewhat manages to stand out is where a can flies directly into a man's head. I feel like the objective of the shot was either shock or disgust in a darkly comedic way... or maybe it's just as simple as doing something to get a reaction out of the audience. In the end if just a reaction is its goal, then it definitely succeeds.
The score was composed by Joseph Trapanese and while it's not very memorable the film tries to make up for that with a variety of popular songs. The standout moment for the music has to be during a gunfight when a rather relaxed song is being played over the obviously intense situation, along with some rather unusual visual choices to help go along with it. To have a song that is so clearly out of place for everything else that is happening in the scene, but yet somehow feels refreshing and enjoyable, just added more to my enjoyment of it.
The one thing that lessened my enjoyment of the film would be that from very early on we know why Bautista is going after this particular criminal. But even before the main events even start, we get a pre-titles sequence showing how all of that happened. It doesn't slow anything down, but certainly could have been told to the audience through dialogue instead of a five to ten minute infodump sequence. Instead the film could have used those minutes to achieve the potential that it doesn't quite fulfil.
The conclusions I draw from this are: Stuber has good performances especially from Bautista; a conventional script that's self-aware, funny and engaging, and rarely drags; one startling shot in the cinematography which I think was maybe put in just to get a reaction from the audience; a score that fails to stand out in any way, but uses a popular song in one scene to great comedic effect; and is only flawed by spending a few minutes focusing on something that could have been done in a much simpler way.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Stuber...
B-
Thank you for reading.
The film is about a dedicated but relentless detective who enlists the help of an average Uber driver when he has the chance to bring down the criminal who killed his partner. But of course difficulties occur along the way, mostly stemming from how different the two men are, and they have to overcome those differences if they are to work together so that one can do his job while maintaining the reputation that he holds quite dear.
The performances are fine, but Nanjiani and Bautista effortlessly stand out. They do play the roles in a clichéd fashion but have an undeniable chemistry and Bautista especially shows commitment to his role, with often comedic presence and at times scene-stealing charisma. Nanjina does have moments too, but beyond the characters' chemistry it felt like he was really just there to give reactions of shock to anything that was happening around him. And also adapting to one situation after another which really was only funny with him once or twice.
The film was written by Tripper Clancy and on paper feels like a very generic buddy cop film, but the script keeps everything moving at a brisk pace, with often funny dialogue and over the top action sequences. And there is at times a feeling of self awareness, of the film knowing how silly it is and not taking itself too seriously. When things get even slightly dramatic, that feeling of comedic tone is still there. I thought of the script as an interesting way to do a film that feels conventional, but all the right steps seem to have been taken to keep it from slowing down and getting boring.
The film was shot by Bobby Shore and most of the shots are fine if unmemorable. But the one shot that somewhat manages to stand out is where a can flies directly into a man's head. I feel like the objective of the shot was either shock or disgust in a darkly comedic way... or maybe it's just as simple as doing something to get a reaction out of the audience. In the end if just a reaction is its goal, then it definitely succeeds.
The score was composed by Joseph Trapanese and while it's not very memorable the film tries to make up for that with a variety of popular songs. The standout moment for the music has to be during a gunfight when a rather relaxed song is being played over the obviously intense situation, along with some rather unusual visual choices to help go along with it. To have a song that is so clearly out of place for everything else that is happening in the scene, but yet somehow feels refreshing and enjoyable, just added more to my enjoyment of it.
The one thing that lessened my enjoyment of the film would be that from very early on we know why Bautista is going after this particular criminal. But even before the main events even start, we get a pre-titles sequence showing how all of that happened. It doesn't slow anything down, but certainly could have been told to the audience through dialogue instead of a five to ten minute infodump sequence. Instead the film could have used those minutes to achieve the potential that it doesn't quite fulfil.
The conclusions I draw from this are: Stuber has good performances especially from Bautista; a conventional script that's self-aware, funny and engaging, and rarely drags; one startling shot in the cinematography which I think was maybe put in just to get a reaction from the audience; a score that fails to stand out in any way, but uses a popular song in one scene to great comedic effect; and is only flawed by spending a few minutes focusing on something that could have been done in a much simpler way.
Having taken all my pros and cons into account, I'm going to give Stuber...
B-
Thank you for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)