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.
Monday, 28 October 2019
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-
Monday, 16 September 2019
IT Chapter Two Review
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)