/ July film thread
Kicking off with a predictable low point, what can I say, I felt like punishing myself on Friday and had some time to kill.
I was going to give it 4/10 but then realised I was only doing that so that people wouldn't think I was marking it down simply because I don't generally like the works of Danny Boyle or Richard Curtis, but on reflection, it's a 3. It's not "wretched", nor even "gruelling", but it is very badly written (I mean truly appalling writing, poorly thought out - if you are going to do a high-concept premise like this, don't just hand in your first draft that you wrote when drunk, Richard), overlong, has a weak lead performance, and basically just felt like 2 hours of watching the trailer.
It salvages a couple of points for nice performances by Lily James in the only half-decent role in the film, and Joel Fry gamely playing a badly written slapstick role, I give him credit for somehow making bad dialogue watchable. On the downside, as mentioned, the lead, Himesh Patel, just can't deliver lines convincingly, and every time Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal appeared as Patel's "comic-relief" parents, it was like nails scraping down a blackboard. Avoid.
This is the film that Danny Boyle abandoned James Bond for. Bond is now in the hands of Cary Fukunaga (True Detective Season 1, the 2011 Jane Eyre, and Maniac and Beasts of No Nation neither of which I've seen but which look more interesting than most of Boyle's output. Bond wins.
Yesterday - good date movie, I enjoyed it.
Apollo 11 - good date movie for geeks, I enjoyed it.
You must be drifting away from your voting on fitness for purpose here? I have no interest at all in the film but pretty much all of what Boyle and Curtis do suits their fans fine. The film has an audience score of 90% on RT (60% for critics) pretty much as I would expect for the film equivalent of radio 2 rose tinted history fare. I'm not complaining about the review btw, I just sometimes wish you would dump the voting system as it seems contrived to me: what you say means so much more.
> You must be drifting away from your voting on fitness for purpose here? I have no interest at all in the film but pretty much all of what Boyle and Curtis do suits their fans fine. The film has an audience score of 90% on RT (60% for critics) pretty much as I would expect for the film equivalent of radio 2 rose tinted history fare. I'm not complaining about the review btw, I just sometimes wish you would dump the voting system as it seems contrived to me: what you say means so much more.
A fair point but I thought about this one long and hard and I will defend my system. I don't think it achieved what it set out to do because there wasn't a single line, joke or sight-gag in it that even raised half a smile (and I noted that nobody else in the admittedly small 5:30pm audience made a single noise of amusement). It's meant to be a comedy. It's witless and charmless and gormless. Curtis appears to have read a Wikipedia entry on "the legacy of the Beatles" and classed that as research.
I assume it set out to present a breakout star by putting an unknown in the lead role. It fails because he is not good. It might be the worst thing that Curtis or Boyle has produced. Yes I've stated that I don't much like their output in general but I've never really found it to be actively BAD. I kind of liked "About Time" and despite its many problems, I grant that "Love ,Actually" kind of works in a way. I gave Trainspotting 2 a rather high 8/10.
minor spoiler alert here.
The premise, shown in trailer and on posters, is that some global event causes The Beatles to never have existed, but otherwise life goes on as normal for everyone except our protagonist who uses his recollection of their catalogue, to become a music star. Fine. Except every now and then we get references to other things that have now never existed. Coca Cola comes up twice, maybe there is Pepsi product placement in the film? And a couple of other things. But neither the film nor the protagonist bother to explore these after the "sight gag" of looking them on the Internet.
The film shows a fundamental ignorance of how the music industry works (and how dificult it is to access a big star backstage at a concert!) and presents an insultingly cartoony version of it all. Its romance plot is an infantile mess. It tries to put an "Easter Egg" in toward the end (I say Easter Egg because it's not exactly a twist) and although well played and perhaps the most imaginative bit of the film, it is too little too late, and the writing and delivery are trite.
I eyeballed the departing audience (around 14 people) and they all looked umoved and a bit bored).
My score is NOT based on it "not being for me". I don't believe that it is fit for purpose. I have numerous friends who I thought of when I saw the trailer and thought "they might like this", indeed I went to see it willing to give it a chance. I would not recommend it to friends who like the Curtis and/or Boyle canons.
Also, have you SEEN it?
Also, most of my write-ups don't refer quite so much to the points. In this case, yes it does.
> The film has an audience score of 90% on RT (60% for critics)
And as an aside, I'm not sure I've ever seen you complain about me giving a higher score than your beloved Rotten Tomatoes.
That 90% shows that your cinema opinion of the audience isn't typical. I don't mind going to see something critically acclaimed, or an art house movie, or a Sci Fi big budget film, to resolve or confirm an argunent; but such Curtis fare, if I watch at all, will have to wair for a good day when I'm watching TV a few years hence.
> That 90% shows that your cinema opinion of the audience isn't typical.
You have totally misunderstood my system. It's not about audience members' enjoyment.
Clearly.... I like your reviews but don't quite understand the numbers. The main thing for me is these threads are a useful resource for film lovers. I mildly prefer RT over IMDb but find these threads add more interesting stuff than either.
Watched 'A Dark Song' yesterday interesting little Brit flick. Atypical country house horror, played as a two hander with very watchable performances from Catherine Walker and Steve Oram. Hard to put my finger on exactly why, but I really enjoyed it.
Thanks, I will bear it in mind
At last got round to seeing Rocketman (I would have seen it weeks ago if it hadn't been for my hip replacement). At least 8.5 on your scale, probably 9. Superlative in every way; perfectly realised. My god, Taron Egerton is talented. I can't imagine anyone doing it better. I didn't realise until I came out of the cinema that he was the same actor who'd played Eddie the Eagle, nor that it was the same director. (I have a way of going to see movies without reading up about them first! Deliberately.) Nor that it was Jamie Bell (Billy Elliott) playing Bernie Taupin. (I didn't recognise him.) Superb, dark script. Worked at many levels/all levels, shunning nothing. At the top level it was a great celebration of music. Taron E was at least equal to the challenge musically, amazing. As were all the other players in the superlative cast. I expect/hope to see several Oscar nominations, not least for Taron and Dexter.
I think that unfortunately Taron's chances of an Oscar nomination will be hampered by Rami Malek having just won for playing Freddie Mercury in a film directed mostly by Dexter Fletcher. Can't have two gay British musicians with a 1970s heyday, in consecutive years!
Glad I persuaded you then! I gave it 8 or 8.5 but don't tell Offwidth
Yes, good point re Malek. But Dexter might still get it (I think his taking over the directing of Bohemian Rhapsody was uncredited, wasn't it?)
Yes, your recommendation (plus that of another film buff friend of mine - and also some good reviews) made me want to see it. Thanks.
> Yes, good point re Malek. But Dexter might still get it (I think his taking over the directing of Bohemian Rhapsody was uncredited, wasn't it?)
I believe it was, but of course industry knows, and I think some nominations are influenced (not wrongly!) by "industry information" e.g. Sandra Bullock's Oscar nomination for Gravity is surely because it was a role that every major player had been interested in, and everyone knew that aside from what is seen on screen, it was a particularly tricky role given that most of it was acted sitting in a dark box with just her head sticking out
Spider-Man : Far From Home
Special review without a score, just for Offwidth. And having to hold back a little so as not to inject any sort of spoilers.
I think this film is set up to be the start of the next "phase" in the Marvel Cinematic Universe although honestly I don't know what the phases have been, apparently we've had three.
More to the point, after the significant events of the past two Avengers films, this is a bit of a fresh start, and it keeps things pretty lean - even more lean than Spider-Man: Homecoming insofar as it pretty much concentrates ONLY on Peter Parker / Spiderman, and new entry into the series, Quentin Beck / Mysterio.
Not sure if they have gone too far with making this one light-hearted and near-comedic, to compensate for the heavy tone of the past two Avengers outings (and the relative lack of humour in Captain Marvel), some slapstick aspects were a little tedious and although the comedy sidekick/best friend Ned is likeable, his schtick DID get repetitive. Bit of a slow start on this one too or at least it felt that way as there is no token opening action sequence - again a bit of a change maybe.
In an early scene it deals very deftly with certain questions left hanging after Endgame (regarding the "snap" and the "blip"), and then starts to feel a little disjointed/schizophrenic as it focuses on Peter really wanting to just have a holiday from being Spider-Man, and to be allowed to just be a 16-year-old high-school kid on his summer trip, but it doesn't take him long to be swinging back into usual action.
The plot involving the Jake Gyllenhaal character is pretty damn predictable but it actually suits the light hearted tone of this film, almost as if they'd wanted to make something more child-friendy, easy to follow etc. And I have to say Gyllenhaal is great in this, he really elevates it. He and Zendaya (as MJ, the object of Peter's desire) are the standouts, although nobody is weak.
More unwelcome slapstick from the schoolteachers spoils what is otherwise a nice little travelogue through Venice and Prague and London (arguably the nicest use of real locations, in any of the MCU films) and business as usual with superhero stuff going on.
Overall likeable due to humour and being concise.
Good review. Can I have a score please (promise I won't tell Offwidth)?
> Apollo 11 - good date movie for geeks, I enjoyed it.
That sells it enormously short. Possibly a lot of the footage has been previously shown here and there, but the way it's all put together and the detail it shows gives a fresh perspective on the whole endeavour. My highlights were the extended shot of the Eagle module coming to land, and the footage of Neil and Buzz out and about on the moon's surface. It's a good thing someone had the foresight to film all the goings-on for posterity.
A madcap psychoanalytical comedy... surprisingly good despite the obvious low budget. Imagine Terry Gilliam illustrating a fable on the subject. Especially loved the relationship between the images of Freud and Jung.
Ah, are you one of the misguided fools who believe in the Moon?
> Ah, are you one of the misguided fools who believe in the Moon?
Someone has to.
I watched this the other week, and was looking forward to it, having previously enjoyed Danny Boyle films, Richard Curtis scripts, and the Beatles.
However I agree wholeheartedly with Blue’s review/rating.
I think the film was a great idea, but delivered poorly. If you consider that Notting Hill is a film based around the idea that your friend brings a famous actor to dinner as their date.
Yesterday is the same premise, but based on the idea, due to some bizarre twist in circumstances, that the Beatles never existed, and our protagonist is the only person who can remember their songs. However, unlike Notting Hill, Yesterday executes that idea very poorly.
Again trying to not put a score on this, as an experiment in placating Offwidth and avoiding him bouncing irrelevant Rotten Tomatoes scores back at me.
If you've seen the trailer for this film you are probably thinking "The Wicker Millenials". if you haven't seen the trailer, then know this - it's about a group of young American students who visit a friend in Sweden on the "commune" in which he grew up, which just happens to be having its "once every 90 years" 9-day summer pagan festival. Cue the shenanigans.
All of which makes it sound a bit naff...BUT if you've seen the trailer you may have noticed that it looks pretty good.
This is the second film from writer-director Ari Aster who made last year's opinion-dividing "Hereditary", a film that divided opinion even in the same viewer (I gave it a high score but its ending did throw me off a bit and put me off it....).
What Aster excelled at with Hereditary was: playing it straight; a slow burn; getting superb performances out of his cast.
Midsommar provides all of the above in spades (there ARE moments of humour, most welcome across a 2.5 hour running time), and there's the bonus of it having an excellent ending rather than the questionable one from Hereditary.
In short it is an excellent, memorable and somewhat bold film, even if you do feel that a thin storyline is stretched out and it is indeed basically The Wicker Man. It's a lot better than The Wicker Man which is a very effective cult classic but which has a lot of silly aspects to it.
Midsommar's Florence Pugh carries the whole film in a brilliantly rounded complex role. She is superb. The support cast of mostly "unknowns" is also strong but this is Pugh's moment.
Even if the story is thin, the dialogue is brilliant - as an example, an early scene (way before all the shenanigans) featuring an awkward "not quite breaking up" conversation between a couple, is very real and grounded.
Most of all, the film treats the audience with respect and assumes some intelligence. Very little is spelled out, as it doesn't need to be - Aster allows you to be ahead of the story for the most part (there is an assumption of a small amount of cine-literacy but it is fine without).
It certainly earns its 18 certificate.
Never SCARY, it's proper unsettling throughout.
> Good review. Can I have a score please (promise I won't tell Offwidth)?
It was a strong 7
I saw In Bruges last night for the first time and it was one of the most enjoyable films I have seen in a long time. The plot was great and I really enjoyed the dark comedy throughout the film.
Two MANKY hookers and a racist dwarf
Read this thread today while the film is still fresh in memory.
Not seen this but it breaks my self-imposed rule made after viewing too many long films: not to go see anything over 1hr 45mins. Anything longer usually means the story drifts significantly in places and I end up resenting the lack of editorial control / conciseness of vision. Blade Runner 2049?
I feel similar sometimes, and am kind of happy when I see that a film is under 1h45m (I have that same threshold!) but I am not going to cut off my nose to spite my face, and a good story well told need not necessarily feel that long (AND I've seen 90 minute films that felt too long because of poor pacing etc).
Midsommar did not feel 2.5 hours long but you certainly felt that it was long, yet as I say, I appreciated that this allowed GOOD pacing. The story never drifted, the editorial control was bang on and the vision was maintained.
Last year's remake of Suspiria, on the other hand, was about 40 minutes overlong, at 2.5 hours (plus I'd somehow got it into my head that it was 1h50m, I probably read 150 minutes and got muddled, so during the film I was actually thinking it was gearing up for the climax 30 minutes before it did so)
Not everyone agrees! The Guardian review:
Aster lets the Hårga’s rituals unfold over tedious stretches of time (the film runs nearly two and a half hours), revelling in geometric images, pagan symbols, sunbleached Swedish fields and trippy CGI; flower crowns bloom and trees liquefy as the characters lose their heads. Annoying then, that there is no puzzle to solve. As the film sways drunkenly towards its inevitable conclusion, Aster fails to conjure a sense of dread or even tension – essential qualities of the horror genre.
Peter Bradshaw by any chance?
edit...nope. Oh well
I don't think the length was really her issue with it though. She was frustrated that there wasn't a "puzzle to solve"
That thread is amazing, I love how many small references there are!
> That thread is amazing, I love how many small references there are!
owlart never ever reported back as to whether he'd watched it!
Watched Get Out last night, first movie in ages (due to youtube addiction).
7/10 I think. Quite silly, but great fun. Probably the first time I've seen racism used for comic-horror effect, and it worked brilliantly. Plus, the inverted racism of presenting whiteness as sinister and blackness as real and honest, was pulled off in a way that was tongue-in-cheek and genuinely funny rather than self-righteous. The off-the-shelf horror format and techniques were a bit boring, but it's definitely good fun and worth watching.
I would agree with that assessment. A perfectly good film but not nearly as good as the "buzz" around it suggested.
Jordan Peele's next film "Us" was a real let down, it just didn't work. What a shame.
Unfortunately basically a true story with occasional surreal moments and a weird background scene played out along with the end credits.
I liked Kathryn Bigelow's feature debut The Loveless, saw it on Moviedrome circa 1991.
quick one for now.
Stuber was even worse than the trailer suggests. Just downright awful.
An 'anniversary' documentary shown on BBC4 and currently available on the I Player. Still stunning.
This was from a Guardian reviewer unknown to me. In fact Bradshaw gave it 5 stars. Over-generous perhaps, but the film held my attention for the full 2 and half hours. Not a lot of horror really, and quite funny/ridiculous in parts.
Just started to watch it but had to stop after two minutes and ponder the maths. The intro says there were nine moon missions and twenty four astronauts made the trip. I understand the nine missions but am puzzled by 24 since 9x3 is 27. Any ideas?
Some went more than once
Ah yes,they did. So Lovell has made the journey twice without setting foot on the surface.
I am still puzzled that without knowing the facts of it, you still couldn’t have instantly applied that reasonable assumption, to make the mathematics work.
Well that depends on one's definition of a "reasonable" assumption, I suppose. It appears that eliminating the impossibles is not my strong point.
Hi Tom, it was more that you state you actually stopped and pondered the maths. If you hadn't mentioned the maths, my second comment might have been less acerbic I do, by the way, pride myself on the diplomacy of my first one!
BBC2 @ 11.00pm on Saturday. A must see for anyone who missed it and wondered what exactly was behind the 2008 global financial crash. The answers are more shocking than most could imagine and the film lays this out with humour and detail.
More than a decade of austerity later the financial system faults that led to the crash are barely repaired and our government still blame Labour budgeting for a banking crisis on a global scale due almost entirely to lax regulation in the US (most passionately supported by the right).
Having spent a fair bit of time in Malaysian rainforests I was almost hypontised by this highly minimalist tale of two fugitive strangers, who don't speak the same language, trying to evade and survive during the Japanese attack on Singapore. Humanity reduced to the primodial nature of the jungle; with the rainforest as very much the star of the show
Such an abundance of space riches this month. This time a rarity: the perfeft blend of science and art:
Earlier this month Brian's view of The Planets was also an amazing watch (and still on I Player for now). Ice on the surface of Mercury... who could have guessed that?
Managed to get Titan on my little scope the other week. Gives you a bit of an empty feeling
(Not as much as M31, of course)
Are you sponsored by RT?
how was Anamaria in the film ?
I am overdue 4 reviews. The Matrix , Stuber,Jaws, Annabelle Comes Home.
my opinions on all of the above are easily predictable
Anamaria was excellent (as usual).
I made my points about RT earlier this year.
Some rare negatives from me. The first in the 'it's so bad its funny' category. A good idea squandered. Wolf Hall for Fail and Scum readers. On the plus side, lovely sets and costumes and oh so camp.
Not the best start to a double bill but then sadly the interesting looking horror thriller Green Room buried some good potential (especially musically and black humour wise) in unneccesary excess gore. Picard gone bad in more ways than one (albeit his acting was passable). Can't figure out why the critics loved this as much as they did.
Brain cleaned with the space opera escapism of the last episode of The Expanse series 2. Apt drama given the recent documentary focus on the solar system.
> > Apollo 11 - good date movie for geeks, I enjoyed it.
> That sells it enormously short. Possibly a lot of the footage has been previously shown here and there, but the way it's all put together and the detail it shows gives a fresh perspective on the whole endeavour. My highlights were the extended shot of the Eagle module coming to land, and the footage of Neil and Buzz out and about on the moon's surface. It's a good thing someone had the foresight to film all the goings-on for posterity.
I saw this last night. Straight 5 stars. A beautiful, inspiring, extremely well-crafted film, with extraordinarily high-quality renovated film footage. Straightforward story-telling with no gimmicks; and even though one knows the story exactly in advance, it keeps you on the edge of your seat from start to finish. Very unusual in not being a film about the horrors or tragedies of the human condition, but about human expertise and excellence.* And the extraordinary capabilities of the scientific mind. I'm giving it 5 stars as a movie because of it's a superb editing job (the director's credit was 'Directed and Edited by'). I'd be amazed if it didn't get an Oscar nomination for editing.
Later note: * Of course, this is double refreshing compared with our present age of mediocrity and lazy thinking, so retrogressive and repressive compared with the 1960s.
> Later note: * Of course, this is double refreshing compared with our present age of mediocrity and lazy thinking, so retrogressive and repressive compared with the 1960s.
Are you absolutely sure that there is not some aspect of confirmation bias combined with rose-tinted spectacles and inherently selective memory? Sure the studios in 1960s were more able to indulge the cool and offbeat, but this didn’t always yield great results, and in parallel there was an awful lot of dreary overblown tat.
Recently I found very little “retrogressive and repressive” in such fate as Aronofsky’s “mother!”, or Lanthimos’ “The Killing of A Sacred Deer”, for example.
Annabelle Comes Home.
Predictably third-rate fare as a second sequel to a spin-off from a franchise. I liked the two "The Conjuring" films rather more than I'd expected, mainly due to the charisma of the two leads Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga. I ignored the first two Annabelle spin-off films but this third entry caught my eye partly because it's the first to feature Wilson and Farmiga, and also because it has one of the best "child actresses" around, McKenna Grace, as their daughter.
There's sadly not much worth writing about this one though. Wilson and Farmiga are little more than extended cameos, with the bulk of the film focusing on two adolescent babysitters and ghostly shenanigans in the family home one night.
It's a real shame that it wasn't better because there are many good things about it - it's really nicely shot with some clever compositions and lighting, and the acting is reasonable, even with believable dialogue. However the actual STORY lets it down. By the time everything kicks in, you're simply not engaged with any of the characters or what might happen to them. Screenplay needed a LOT more work on it. So, an example of how however skilled your film-making craft is, you get nowhere without some sort of engagement in the story.
The Matrix. 7/10.
This has had its 20th-anniversary 4K restoration and re-release.
I am sure everyone here is familiar with The Matrix and its legacy even if they haven't seen it.
Therefore I won't hold back on spoilers here.
I saw it twice in the cinema in 1999, and I don't know if I ever saw it all the way through again, but you know, it's everywhere, and so much of it has burned into the collective consciousness, it was like visiting an old friend, going back to see it.
I always remember that the end of the film was somewhat ambiguous, leaving it open to becoming a franchise if successful, or working well enough as a standalone film (basically Neo dies and is resurrected and this resurrection makes him much more powerful within the Matrix, but we don't see humanity being saved, we just see that he has the potential, because he is "The One")
I also remember thinking that it was all very cool and looked great but that lots of it just didn't really hang together.
I'll stand by this.
The Wachowskis did achieve a great thing with this film, the proper creation of a movie universe from scratch, and visual splendour throughout, and of course a lot of the now-legendary action sequences which influenced everyone since.
But it is certainly flawed! The premise itself doesn't stand up to a second of scrutiny, of course, but to be honest I forgive it that to the same extent that we enjoy space battles in Star Wars, and the time travelling adventures of Marty McFly. What irked me on this viewing was the level of detail in The Matrix, given that its only purpose is to keep the farmed humans vaguely engaged. There's no explanation for why it's been built as a model of Earth circa 1999. And also the way that everything is resolved by physical fights and guns even though our protagonists are elite hackers. I could go on (impractical costuming etc), but you all surely know all this stuff well enough. That I was mostly on Cypher's side and would have just let the machines take over, is by the by
I had hoped that this viewing might make me see it in a more favourable light but sadly not. Still a decent score because it does seem to achieve a lot of what it wants, and the cinematography and editing are top notch. Special mention to Carrie-Ann Moss whose acting in this was a lot better than I remembered (in fairness NOBODY could have made her cheesy resurrection-kiss dialogue work well, but the rest of her performance was pretty damn good)
Rubbish. Rather like The Hitman's Bodyguard, this had a feel of having been written as a straight action thriller and then hastily turned into a buddy action comedy without actually putting any decent comedy or buddy stuff into it. In this case, probably because as a straight film it was far too similar to Collateral.
A waste of Dave Bautista and Kumail Nanjiani and a tragic waste of Mira Sorvino's return to the big screen. They all deserve so much better than pap like this. It does not even stay true to its own simple premise (Bautista needs a taxi driver because he's just had eye surgery and can't drive as his eyes recover....yet he seems pretty handy in the numerous shootouts)
For a comedy, the violence is pretty gratuitous. For some reason the whole thing kept reminding me of One Night at McCools. Probably just because that was another painfully unfunny film that tragically wasted the talents of numerous likeable cast members.
> Annabelle Comes Home.
Forgot to mention, as an aside, this is one of the few major films I've recently seen at the cinema, which passes the anti-Bechdel test (at a pinch)
Another re-release, not sure why (44th anniversary seems an odd number), restored and looking good.
I'm often a bit disparaging about Spielberg but what he created with Jaws is rightfully legendary (leaving aside the damage it did to the global perception of sharks in real life!)
As per my comments on The Matrix, surely everyone is familiar with Jaws so no need to avoid spoilers nor to go into much detail.
A fairly efficient start soon gives way to a mostly slow-burn of a first hour - the famous memorable bits from this first half are actually rather brief in terms of running time. But once we have just Brody, Quint and Hooper on the boat, the film simply never lets up. Even its quiet moments (that calm still exterior shot, after the scars comparisons and Quint's Indianapolis speech) manage to be compelling.
It's excellently shot; the difficulties of this shoot are well documented but what's on screen really works remarkably well.
A nice surprise was that somehow on the big screen, "Bruce" the rubber shark managed to look less ridiculous that he always did on television. I suppose part of that was that I was in a cinema, so there was proper atmosphere and we were buying into it.
Flaws are minor (wayward and inconsistent levels of camaraderie or dissent, especially between Hooper and Quint; the simplicity of the Mayor's decision and insistence for keeping the beach open etc; Lorraine Gary's performance...)
Dreyfuss is absolutely the standout in this film, acting-wise. Shaw does ham it up just 10% too much.
The Current War
A surprising "electrifying" 7.5/10
Bit of a "made for television" feel to this glossy period historical drama about the battle between Edison and George Westinghouse to profit from electrifying America in the late 19th century.
I didn't expect to like this much, and strictly speaking it is not great, it employs all the standard cliches of this sort of thing (although in its favour, there is no "training montage" sequence!). It's episodic, the pacing is a bit confusing, it's all stuffy actors in dress-up and with stick-on Victorian sideburns, etc etc.
It's gorgeously shot, and very well acted (possibly Michael Shannon's finest hour) and for a film that is cramming an approximately 12 year timeline and several well rounded characters into a 105 minute running time, it felt well balanced. There is not really a "side" to take, although Edison is shown to be a problematic man. I didn't remember the outcome and had kind of forgotten Westinghouse, so it was nice to learn or relearn something.
So it's a bit of "nothing to write home about, but also nothing wrong with it" kind of a film.
Maybe not worth a cinema trip but one to watch out for for home viewing.
Also I was amused that the cast features General Zod, Dr Strange, Spider-Man and Hank/Beast all poncing around in tunics
A snappy 7.5/10
Basically a minimalistic Piranha (2010) minus all the campy fun, which works well in this case.
I mention 2010's Piranha because this is another top notch B-movie from that film's director Alexandre Aja. By playing it dead straight this time, he gets us to buy in to the somewhat hokey premise which is: young woman and her father are trapped by alligators, in a flooding basement during a hurricane and have to survive and escape. That's it. That is the whole film. But Aja manages to stretch this across 90 minutes quite well.
The screenplay is brutally efficient and efficiently brutal. Lots and lots of exposition but it's written well enough that it's not irksome.
And Kaya Scodelario turns in a committed physical performance right up there with the old-skool horror/exploitation movies of the 70s, which Aja clearly loves.
Sure, it gets bogged down with some attempts to inject family drama. Sure, you question just how hungry an alligator can be. Sure, there is some confusion about timescale (appears to run in almost real-time, but simultaneously seems to cover more hours). Sure, suspension of disbelief is required quite a bit (wish I could be so nimble and agile after some of the injuries seen in this, and also wish I had Kaya's 20-20 underwater vision through swampy flood water ) but that's in keeping with the "silly B-movie" feel of it. I liked it all, it was an effective way to pass 90 minutes. There's a nice bone-setting scene.
I hope Michael Shannon wasn't one of the ponces.
> I hope Michael Shannon wasn't one of the ponces.
Why, and what do you mean with this statement ?
> Jaws. 8.5/10
I read the book before the original came out and I was very disappointed that it was only an 'A' at the cinema. It could be one of the few movies I believe would benefit from a remake to bring it closer to the source material.
> I read the book before the original came out and I was very disappointed that it was only an 'A' at the cinema. It could be one of the few movies I believe would benefit from a remake to bring it closer to the source material.
Hooper dies in the book though and we couldn't be having that!
I admire Michael Shannon very much and if I saw him poncing around in a film I don't think I would enjoy the experience.
Maybe we have different definitions of poncing around! I think he ponces around in a lot of his roles, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
He has the second-best stick-on sideburns in The Current War, after Tom Holland.
Just been reading some of his comments about Trump. Not a man to mince his words.
Not a new film at all but we watched "For All Mankind" last night and were blown away by parts of it. The part where you see the film of leaving earth orbit and the description of the earth receding seen for the first time by humans was thought provoking. Also the beautiful space-ballet of the LEM and CM in lunar orbit and the sheer joy of the astronauts bouncing and driving around on the moon's surface, as well as the dream one of them had on the moon about travelling for miles in the rover and finding tracks leading to a rover just like theirs with two astronauts who had been there for thousands of years.
Bears watching again, and of course music by Eno to accompany
This week's Friday Night Video follows mapmaker Joey Henson who has been drawing stunning maps of the boulders in North Carolina for many years. The film follows Joey and a community of rock climbers as they climb, document and preserve the...