|
|
Post by LaraQ on Jan 6, 2018 13:15:08 GMT
My review of Bright.
I heard about Bright for a while leading up to its Netflix release. I like David Ayer as a director, and I like Will Smith and Joel Edgerton, however one thing that caused me to become sceptical about Bright being any good was Max Landis. It has received a lot of hate upon its release and after seeing it, I have to say that it is far from being the worst movie of 2017, but it definitely has a lot of problems. While there are some good parts to it, there is a lot of mixed aspects to it.
David Ayer hasn’t had a good track record with scripts lately. Sabotage was written by Skip Woods (who wrote Max Payne, A Good Day to Die Hard and X-Men Origins Wolverine) and Suicide Squad was written by Ayer himself, and although he can write some good movies (Training Day) he had only 6 weeks to do it. Now with Bright, Max Landis is writing, Landis is not a very good writer and surprise surprise, the script to Bright is not very good. I know that Ayer rewrote some of it but again, he had 6 weeks to write Suicide Squad and that didn’t turn out so well. Bright has some attempt to add some racial social commentary, the problem is that it is very heavy handed that its laughable at time. In fact, one of the biggest problems is that the film isn’t subtle at all. I also feel like it takes itself way too seriously, if it went more insane and over the top it might’ve worked better in a weird way. I’m not saying that it would only work if its over the top, I’m saying this because a lot of the moments when it tries to be serious and impactful, it really doesn’t leave the impression that it’s trying to have. The closest it comes is when it deals with Joel Edgerton’s character, I liked what happened with him. I was reasonably invested throughout the whole movie, flaws aside I found it to be just okay, however the third act was underwhelming. Not everything is sub par, I like the world that they have created, combining mankind with orcs, elves and fairies. The blending of fantasy element to the real world actually worked well. There’s definitely potential for a good Max-Landis-free sequel to Bright. It’s going to need a much better writer however.
Will Smith and Joel Edgerton are the leads and they had great chemistry. Some of the banter dialogue between the two doesn’t always work and can feel forced at times but the actors do what they can and they do enough to make a real impression. Edgerton in particularly is a highlight, being one of the best parts about the whole film. Nobody in the supporting cast really gets to stand out, they are okay but don’t leave a real impression. Noomi Rapace is the villain and she was okay but was completely wasted. All she did was villainous things and lacked a lot of character depth, she’s not even in the movie that much. Smith and Egerton are definitely the standouts among the cast.
David Ayer does direct this movie well for the most part. The action sequences are well filmed and were quite entertaining. The makeup is very impressive especially with the orcs, they all look great. Even the visual effects are quite good for a Netflix movie. The use of music wasn’t always the best, like Suicide Squad, Bright would often have scenes that would randomly switch between modern day songs and it would feel very out of place and unneeded.
A lot of people are wondering one thing: is Bright better than Suicide Squad? As someone who now finds SS to be a guilty pleasure, I’d say yes, but not by a huge amount. Bright is not that good of a movie but I wouldn’t call it bad either. It has an interesting world with its fantasy genre blending, Smith and Edgerton play well off each other and Ayer’s direction is solid overall. As repetitive as this criticism is, I gotta say it, Max Landis’s script is really what really holds it back from being good. Nothing is subtle and not as well executed as it should have been. Apparently, a sequel is already in the works and thankfully Max Landis is not involved. As long as they get someone else much better to write the script, I’m on board with it. It definitely has some potential.
My review of Bright at blog thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/bright-2017-review/
I must admit I kinda liked Bright.It`s by no means a great film but it`s entertaining enough and nowhere near as bad as some people would have you believe.Agree that the script was the weak link ,Max Landis is such a hack.He also got paid $3 mill for it!!!!.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Jan 6, 2018 21:18:29 GMT
My review of Bright.
I heard about Bright for a while leading up to its Netflix release. I like David Ayer as a director, and I like Will Smith and Joel Edgerton, however one thing that caused me to become sceptical about Bright being any good was Max Landis. It has received a lot of hate upon its release and after seeing it, I have to say that it is far from being the worst movie of 2017, but it definitely has a lot of problems. While there are some good parts to it, there is a lot of mixed aspects to it.
David Ayer hasn’t had a good track record with scripts lately. Sabotage was written by Skip Woods (who wrote Max Payne, A Good Day to Die Hard and X-Men Origins Wolverine) and Suicide Squad was written by Ayer himself, and although he can write some good movies (Training Day) he had only 6 weeks to do it. Now with Bright, Max Landis is writing, Landis is not a very good writer and surprise surprise, the script to Bright is not very good. I know that Ayer rewrote some of it but again, he had 6 weeks to write Suicide Squad and that didn’t turn out so well. Bright has some attempt to add some racial social commentary, the problem is that it is very heavy handed that its laughable at time. In fact, one of the biggest problems is that the film isn’t subtle at all. I also feel like it takes itself way too seriously, if it went more insane and over the top it might’ve worked better in a weird way. I’m not saying that it would only work if its over the top, I’m saying this because a lot of the moments when it tries to be serious and impactful, it really doesn’t leave the impression that it’s trying to have. The closest it comes is when it deals with Joel Edgerton’s character, I liked what happened with him. I was reasonably invested throughout the whole movie, flaws aside I found it to be just okay, however the third act was underwhelming. Not everything is sub par, I like the world that they have created, combining mankind with orcs, elves and fairies. The blending of fantasy element to the real world actually worked well. There’s definitely potential for a good Max-Landis-free sequel to Bright. It’s going to need a much better writer however.
Will Smith and Joel Edgerton are the leads and they had great chemistry. Some of the banter dialogue between the two doesn’t always work and can feel forced at times but the actors do what they can and they do enough to make a real impression. Edgerton in particularly is a highlight, being one of the best parts about the whole film. Nobody in the supporting cast really gets to stand out, they are okay but don’t leave a real impression. Noomi Rapace is the villain and she was okay but was completely wasted. All she did was villainous things and lacked a lot of character depth, she’s not even in the movie that much. Smith and Egerton are definitely the standouts among the cast.
David Ayer does direct this movie well for the most part. The action sequences are well filmed and were quite entertaining. The makeup is very impressive especially with the orcs, they all look great. Even the visual effects are quite good for a Netflix movie. The use of music wasn’t always the best, like Suicide Squad, Bright would often have scenes that would randomly switch between modern day songs and it would feel very out of place and unneeded.
A lot of people are wondering one thing: is Bright better than Suicide Squad? As someone who now finds SS to be a guilty pleasure, I’d say yes, but not by a huge amount. Bright is not that good of a movie but I wouldn’t call it bad either. It has an interesting world with its fantasy genre blending, Smith and Edgerton play well off each other and Ayer’s direction is solid overall. As repetitive as this criticism is, I gotta say it, Max Landis’s script is really what really holds it back from being good. Nothing is subtle and not as well executed as it should have been. Apparently, a sequel is already in the works and thankfully Max Landis is not involved. As long as they get someone else much better to write the script, I’m on board with it. It definitely has some potential.
My review of Bright at blog thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/bright-2017-review/
I must admit I kinda liked Bright.It`s by no means a great film but it`s entertaining enough and nowhere near as bad as some people would have you believe.Agree that the script was the weak link ,Max Landis is such a hack.He also got paid $3 mill for it!!!!. I am so glad that Landis isn't returning for the sequel. |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Jan 9, 2018 22:17:43 GMT
My review of I, Tonya
I, Tonya had my interest because of the cast (with Margot Robbie and Sebastian Stan), premise and the trailers. I wasn’t very familiar about Tonya Harding and going into it had a very vague knowledge about the incident with her and Nancy Kerrigan. I was expecting from I, Tonya great performances and I definitely got that. But I didn’t expect this to be one of my favourite films of the year. The style, the story, everything somehow worked together to make a great biopic that surprised me on many levels.
I, Tonya covers more than just the Tonya Harding/Nancy Kerrigan incident, it also covers Tonya’s life in chronological order, so we actually get to know her before “the incident” occurs. From start to finish it cuts to many of the characters/people in interview tapes who tell their side of the story, sometimes there are conflicting stories, especially between Tonya and her ex husband Jeff. One of the best strengths that the film has is that it is a dark comedy, it makes the film a lot more entertaining than if it just showed the events play out. The comedy somehow works and works seamlessly, it doesn’t feel forced at all. Some of the comedy comes from just how ridiculous some events were and how stupid many of the people were (particularly Tonya’s bodyguard played by Paul Walter Hauser). However, despite the comedy and entertaining style, it doesn’t hold back on a lot of the darker things that happened. A lot of it is quite hard to watch with Tonya having to deal with things such as abuse from both her mother and her husband, and of course the end of Tonya’s career because of the incident with Nancy Kerrigan. As someone who didn’t know a lot about Tonya Harding, let’s just say that events played out like how I didn’t think they would, so I was invested from start to finish, and barely anything took me out of the movie.
Margot Robbie has already proved herself to be a great actress in the past 5 years but with I, Tonya she has delivered her best work yet, she was absolutely phenomenal as Tonya Harding. Margot really transformed into Tonya and brought her to the big screen, a lot of the time you will probably forget that it’s Margot who’s playing her. While we don’t always agree with what Tonya does, we can understand why she does the things she does. There are particularly some scenes that Margot has in the last act which are some of the best pieces of acting that she’s ever done, particularly two certain moments. This is one of the best performances of the year for sure. Sebastian Stan really surprised me as Tonya’s ex husband Jeff Gillooly. Throughout the majority of the film I actually forgot that it was Sebastian Stan who was playing him. His performance shouldn’t be overlooked. Allison Janney is also incredible as Tonya’s abusive mother, she is a force to be reckoned with and steals every scene that she’s in. Although she has some moments which are funny, on the whole she is at times frightening in the way she acts towards Tonya, she really leaves a strong impact. Other actors like Julianne Nicholson and Paul Walter Hauser were also great and played their part well.
The direction by Craig Gillespie was solid, very stylistic. Some people have accused the film of stealing the style from Martin Scorsese’s many crime movies, often calling it Goodfellas on ice and I can see a lot of similarities and why they would say that. It breaks the fourth wall multiple times, many of the characters at times talk to the camera (especially when it cuts to present day in the interview room scenes) and there is a lot of narration. However, something about it just worked here that I didn’t mind that it was essentially trying to imitate a Scorsese style. The one aspect that didn’t work so well however was the use of music, at times the song choices felt a little on the nose and convenient and it was distracting occasionally. The ice skating scenes themselves were great, some of the ice skating was probably not done by Margot but at least for me, I thought they did a good job hiding that.
I, Tonya manages to bring to the big screen not only the story behind Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan incident, but also Tonya’s life story and it was done so well, better than I thought it would be. The way it was directed and portrayed was great and the performances from everyone, especially from Margot Robbie, Sebastian Stan and Allison Janney were outstanding and some of the best of the year. One of the biggest things I can say about it is that I’m also pretty sure that Gillespie and the cast and crew have redefined who Tonya Harding is, she is no longer known as just the infamous ice-skater who “supposedly” had another skater’s knee bashed in. I, Tonya is one of the best films of the year and shouldn’t be missed.
Review at my blog thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2018/01/10/i-tonya-2017-review/
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Jan 11, 2018 22:07:29 GMT
My review of Three Billboards Ebbing, Missouri
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri was one of my most anticipated films of 2017. On top of having a great cast with Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell, it was Martin McDonagh’s next film, and so that had my undivided attention. His previous movies, In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths were amazing and some of my favourite movies. So understand that it means a lot when I say that Three Billboards is a career best from Martin McDonagh.
Martin McDonagh’s writing is absolutely fantastic, no surprise there. A lot of elements of his style of his writing in his previous films here too. The dialogue is once again pheromonal, ranging from comedic, to shocking and sometimes even heartfelt. Three Billboards is hilarious at times, with comedy often appearing in surprising moments but at the same time the film is quite dark, bleak, and very emotional. Not many people can switch tones on a dime and make it work effectively but McDonagh is one of the few people who can do it. One of the best parts about Three Billboards is that you can’t predict what’s going to happen, which is why I recommend not looking into this movie too much before watching it, I only watched the trailers going in and I was surprised by a lot of things that happened, and I’m not easily surprised. This is a very original screenplay and nothing is in black and white, there are really no heroes or villains here. The characters are well realised and given more depth than you might initially think they have. One thing I know that will definitely divide people is the ending, it was quite abrupt and not quite what I expected, if I was going to compare it to another movie ending, it would be to No Country for Old Men. However, I think that there was a real reason for this decision and something about it made me okay with it, but I will need to think about it more.
Frances McDormand is fantastic here, she’s had many great performances but this is her best performance since Fargo, and it’s possibly better which is saying a lot. She’s likable, tough as nails and really is a force of nature on screen, while maintaining some vulnerability, Mildred Hayes one of the best characters that Martin McDonagh has written. She really was the perfect actress for the role, I can’t seen anyone else playing her. Woody Harrelson’s performance as the chief of police who McDormand’s Mildred is calling out shouldn’t be overlooked either. His performance here is very nuanced and emotional, this is some of the most emotional work that Harrelson has done and he really is great. Sam Rockwell is quite an underrated and great actor, so its no surprise that he gives an excellent performance here, but this might also be one of the best performances he’s ever given. He plays a racist, dim-witted, violent and unstable cop. On top of having to be both hilarious and vile, he’s also got to have this unexpected arc (which I won’t go too deep into) and all I’ll have to say is that Rockwell was remarkable and pulls it off. Other actors like John Hawkes, Sandy Martin, Peter Dinklage, Lucas Hedges and Caleb Landry Jones all do great jobs and each have their moments to shine.
Martin McDonagh’s direction of Three Billboards overall is good. The direction isn’t really the highlight or focus of the movie but McDonagh does the best he can to make it the best it can be. The cinematography was good, complimenting the performances and writing while never overshadowing them. Carter Burwell’s score also fits perfectly with the movie, it’s there when it needs to be there to and at the right moments. The only out of place thing in terms of the direction was at one point there was an obviously looking CGI deer, that took me out of the movie a bit but that’s just in one scene.
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is absolutely fantastic. The performances were amazing, especially from Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell and it’s Martin McDonagh’s phenomonal writing and direction that makes it all fit together to make a remarkable movie. Hilarious, shocking, dark and emotional, Three Billboards is one of my all times favourite movies of 2017.
My review at blog thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2018/01/12/three-billboards-outside-ebbing-missouri-2017-review/
|
|
|
|
Post by LaraQ on Jan 12, 2018 14:50:47 GMT
Just finished binge watching The End Of The F***king World and I HIGHLY recommend it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Jan 13, 2018 22:31:49 GMT
My review of The Shape of Water
I’ve been hearing a lot about The Shape of Water for a while in the lead up to awards season. I really like Guillermo del Toro, I’ve seen most of his movies and really liked them, even those which aren’t that wholly well received like Crimson Peak. The Shape of Water looked like it would be one of his best yet and having finally seen it, I have to say that this actually just might be Guillermo del Toro’s best film yet, which is saying a lot considering many of the films he’s made. The Shape of Water is absolutely magnificent and already a guaranteed classic.
I loved the story of The Shape of Water, it’s beautiful, it’s dark, it’s absorbing, it dabbles in multiple genres and it all works perfectly. All the major characters are given a lot of depth and their own arcs. Fortunately, the marketing department seemed to learn their lesson from Crimson Peak and knew this time to not market The Shape of Water as a full on horror movie, because it’s definitely not that. Sure, it’s dark at many points, it doesn’t hold back, it’s R rating is well earned and serves the story appropriately. But this isn’t a horror movie. It also feels very grounded in real life, the only difference is that this creature actually exists in the world. The Shape of Water has a very fairy tale-like vibe to it and it actually works well in the film. Del Toro also does well showing why Elisa would fall in love with this creature. As weird as the concept sounds on paper, you completely buy it because del Toro conveys it so well. In fact there are a lot of ‘weird’ elements to the movie and at least for me, I never questioned any of it, as I said, Guillermo del Toro makes it all work. The Shape of Water is around 2 hours long and it is the perfect length. I was consistently absorbed in the story from start to finish and really don’t have any qualms with any of it. I’m not going to go into much more depth in regards to the story, it’s something you really need to experience for yourself.
Everyone is great in this movie. Sally Hawkins is incredible here, she doesn’t speak and has to express her emotions through her facial and body language and she is absolutely wonderful here. While I haven’t seen much from Hawkins, it might be one of her best performances, it’s at the very least one of the best performances of the year. Doug Jones also deserves praise for playing the Amphibian create that Sally’s Elisa falls in love with. He doesn’t say a single word either and can convey so much, unsurprisingly considering how great he is in these kind of roles, he’s pretty much the Andy Serkis of practical effects. He really does give the creature life. Both Hawkins and Jones have so much great chemistry without speaking at all. Michael Shannon as usual is a scene stealer as the antagonist of the film, he does so well at coming across more like a monster than the actual amphibian creature. The other supporting actors are also great and do well to leave an impression, like Richard Jenkins, Octavia Spencer and Michael Stuhlbarg.
Guillermo del Toro did such a fantastic job at directing this movie, you can definitely tell that it’s his direction. The cinematography by Dan Laustsen was great, the colours particularly were used perfectly, creating some beautiful sequences. There was a sequence in the last act of the movie which was very surprising and comes right out of left field, and yet del Toro somehow made it work. When you watch the movie, you’ll know exactly what moment I’m referring to. Del Toro also does well to fully convey it’s time and setting with the production design, music etc, making it feel authentic to real life. The actual amphibian creature (which is practical) was designed very well and is very believable. The music by Alexandre Desplat was also very effective, very enchanting. Overall I think The Shape of Water is a perfectly directed movie.
Guillermo del Toro’s The Shape of Water is incredible, it was even better than I thought it would be, and I thought it was going to be great. The story was great, the performances were all amazing and del Toro’s direction was perfect. The Shape of Water is one of my favourite movies of 2017, Guillermo del Toro really has crafted a beautiful film that deserves to be seen by many. I can already tell that this is going to be a future classic.
Review at blog thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2018/01/14/the-shape-of-water-2017-review/
|
|
|
|
Post by renoh on Jan 14, 2018 21:14:15 GMT
My review of The Shape of Water
I’ve been hearing a lot about The Shape of Water for a while in the lead up to awards season. I really like Guillermo del Toro, I’ve seen most of his movies and really liked them, even those which aren’t that wholly well received like Crimson Peak. The Shape of Water looked like it would be one of his best yet and having finally seen it, I have to say that this actually just might be Guillermo del Toro’s best film yet, which is saying a lot considering many of the films he’s made. The Shape of Water is absolutely magnificent and already a guaranteed classic.
I loved the story of The Shape of Water, it’s beautiful, it’s dark, it’s absorbing, it dabbles in multiple genres and it all works perfectly. All the major characters are given a lot of depth and their own arcs. Fortunately, the marketing department seemed to learn their lesson from Crimson Peak and knew this time to not market The Shape of Water as a full on horror movie, because it’s definitely not that. Sure, it’s dark at many points, it doesn’t hold back, it’s R rating is well earned and serves the story appropriately. But this isn’t a horror movie. It also feels very grounded in real life, the only difference is that this creature actually exists in the world. The Shape of Water has a very fairy tale-like vibe to it and it actually works well in the film. Del Toro also does well showing why Elisa would fall in love with this creature. As weird as the concept sounds on paper, you completely buy it because del Toro conveys it so well. In fact there are a lot of ‘weird’ elements to the movie and at least for me, I never questioned any of it, as I said, Guillermo del Toro makes it all work. The Shape of Water is around 2 hours long and it is the perfect length. I was consistently absorbed in the story from start to finish and really don’t have any qualms with any of it. I’m not going to go into much more depth in regards to the story, it’s something you really need to experience for yourself.
Everyone is great in this movie. Sally Hawkins is incredible here, she doesn’t speak and has to express her emotions through her facial and body language and she is absolutely wonderful here. While I haven’t seen much from Hawkins, it might be one of her best performances, it’s at the very least one of the best performances of the year. Doug Jones also deserves praise for playing the Amphibian create that Sally’s Elisa falls in love with. He doesn’t say a single word either and can convey so much, unsurprisingly considering how great he is in these kind of roles, he’s pretty much the Andy Serkis of practical effects. He really does give the creature life. Both Hawkins and Jones have so much great chemistry without speaking at all. Michael Shannon as usual is a scene stealer as the antagonist of the film, he does so well at coming across more like a monster than the actual amphibian creature. The other supporting actors are also great and do well to leave an impression, like Richard Jenkins, Octavia Spencer and Michael Stuhlbarg.
Guillermo del Toro did such a fantastic job at directing this movie, you can definitely tell that it’s his direction. The cinematography by Dan Laustsen was great, the colours particularly were used perfectly, creating some beautiful sequences. There was a sequence in the last act of the movie which was very surprising and comes right out of left field, and yet del Toro somehow made it work. When you watch the movie, you’ll know exactly what moment I’m referring to. Del Toro also does well to fully convey it’s time and setting with the production design, music etc, making it feel authentic to real life. The actual amphibian creature (which is practical) was designed very well and is very believable. The music by Alexandre Desplat was also very effective, very enchanting. Overall I think The Shape of Water is a perfectly directed movie.
Guillermo del Toro’s The Shape of Water is incredible, it was even better than I thought it would be, and I thought it was going to be great. The story was great, the performances were all amazing and del Toro’s direction was perfect. The Shape of Water is one of my favourite movies of 2017, Guillermo del Toro really has crafted a beautiful film that deserves to be seen by many. I can already tell that this is going to be a future classic.
Review at blog thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2018/01/14/the-shape-of-water-2017-review/
I’m glad you loved it too! I loved every single frame of it, my fav of 2017. Brilliant cast. Really moved me because of how beautiful and so well done everything was. Sally is also mesmerizing in “Maudie”, another must see performance, not many people talk about this movie, I guess it’s been only in Canadian and Irish theatres? I would have nominated her best actress more for Maudie than for A shape of Water, is incredible how she transform into a character considering the fact that she’s so shy and almost passes out in interviews and speeches :) , before 2017 I hadn’t noticed how talented she was. I hope she wins best actress, she’s had 2 amazing performances last year. Guillermo has something similar with David Lowe, they both had in their heads their 2017 released movies when they were little boys. I like Guillermo very much when he explains how he does things and why, one of the few great and humble directors. This movie is really a delight for the eyes. Deserves best movie and best director awards. Here’s the trailer of Maudie, it’s now on iTunes: |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Jan 15, 2018 21:15:26 GMT
My review of All the Money in the World.
I was aware about All the Money in the World in the lead up to its release, even before the controversy hit the film. As most people know, because of the sexual allegations against Kevin Spacey (who had already filmed scenes as J. Paul Getty), director Ridley Scott decided to reshoot his scenes with Christopher Plummer as Getty. This brought a lot more attention to the film, the question being raised often is whether Ridley pulled the reshoots off months before its release, the answer is yes. However, how is the movie on a whole? All the Money in the World is another solid movie by Ridley Scott with the great performances being the highlight.
I was interested in the movie from start to finish but I will admit that it took me a little while to get into it, it was a little slow initially. It is a pretty long movie at around 2 hours and 15 minutes, however looking back at the movie I’m not exactly sure what I would cut out. By the second half of the movie though I was fully into it. The film doesn’t just cover the whole kidnapping, it also goes into some depth about the Getty family through the use of some flashbacks. The film really got more intriguing as it went on. As for how accurate this movie is, I know that there are a few aspects that are inaccurate, especially in the third act, it was probably done to make the film more dramatic. I guess all the real events weren’t interesting, dramatic or captivating enough, so some changes were made. I think most of the film is accurate but it is hard to tell as it’s difficult to find facts. On the whole though, the story was done quite well.
Michelle Williams shouldn’t be overlooked amongst all the Spacey/Plummer controversy. She’s truly great and believable as a mother trying to get her son back and being faced with so many odds. Definitely worthy of a lot of praise. Despite being brought in at the last minute, Christopher Plummer is fantastic as J. Paul Getty. Along with actually being the right age to play Getty and not having extremely distracting makeup (unlike Spacey), acting wise he’s more appropriate. Plummer manages to ground Getty in reality and feel like an actual person instead of a character. Getty definitely is ruthless but has reasons for his decisions and Plummer was fantastic in every scene. Mark Wahlberg was also pretty good, he doesn’t stand out as much as some of the other performances but he does have his moments and still adds quite a bit to the movie as well. Charlie Plummer (no relation to Christopher Plummer) is Paul Getty III and while he doesn’t have too much to work with he did act very well with what he’s given. A performance I also don’t think should be overlooked is of Romain Duris, who’s one of the kidnappers of John Paul III and ends up befriending the captive. They have an interesting relationship that I didn’t expect. Overall all the acting is great and is one of the best parts of the film
Ridley Scott is still to this day a great director and he does great work here again. Anyone worried about the reshoots shouldn’t be, they were seamless. If you showed the film to someone who never heard about the controversy, they wouldn’t be able to tell that reshoots happened. Besides, it’s pretty obvious that every single scene Christopher Plummer is in is a reshoot, none of that is distracting though. There was only really one scene that stood out involving a desert and green screen (which from what I could tell is the only way they could reshoot that scene), otherwise pretty much everything else is in place. The cinematography, lighting and colour pallet throughout the whole film were pretty good, although a little distracting at times with how it changes during some segments. Whenever the film needs to be tense, it is very tense, especially one hard to watch scene in the second half. The score by Daniel Pemberton was also quite good.
All the Money of the World definitely manages to pull off the reshoots and be an engaging thriller. Ridley Scott’s direction was great, the film was for the most part gripping and the performances were fantastic. I’m not sure if I would put this as being one of Ridley Scott’s all time best films but it is one of his best in recent years at the very least. It was a very different kind of movie for him and he pulled it off greatly. It is definitely worth giving a watch.
thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2018/01/16/all-the-money-in-the-world-2017-review/
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Jan 18, 2018 1:24:49 GMT
Lady Bird Review
I had been hearing some amazing things about Lady Bird for a while in the lead up to its release, it has also been such a big player in the Awards field. Naturally I had some high expectations for it. Lady Bird is another great coming of age story with great acting but most of all a really noteworthy directional debut by Greta Gerwig. While I don’t love it as much as most people, it still really is worth seeing.
Greta Gerwig’s script was great. This is a coming of age story and it doesn’t feel cliched at all, it feels real and genuine. In fact, that’s one of the best parts about the whole movie, it felt so real. The dialogue was seamless and feels real, and something you can imagine really being said. The events that happen aren’t really that predictable, and if they do things that you can predict, chances are they are doing it in a way that you wouldn’t expect. It balances out drama and comedy pretty well. It also felt like an honest depiction of growing up. As I said earlier, I didn’t quite love this as much as everyone, it didn’t really hit me on an emotional level. However there’s not exactly anything major in particular that I can point to that I have a problem with. As a coming of age story, it is pretty great, and it doesn’t feel predictable.
Saoirse Ronan is the titular character here and this is possibly her best performance yet. A lot of the movie is riding on her performance and Ronan killed it. She’s so lovable and really does feel like a teenager going through her late adolescence. The supporting cast was great as well. Laurie Metcalf was the stand out supporting performance as the mother and she deserves some praise as well. Both Saoirse and Laurie’s character have a complicated relationship, they are completely different people and this relationship is one of the biggest parts of the movie. Their conflicts feel genuine, they never feel forced and do exactly what you’d expect them to do, and the two have great chemistry. Other supporting actors like Tracy Letts and Lucas Hedges are also good in their roles and do their part. If there was a weak link, to me it’s Timothee Chalamet, I don’t know if it’s so much his acting, it might’ve just been the character. Something about it didn’t work so well and just felt rather distracting.
For a directional debut, Greta Gerwig did a solid job. It feels like a smaller movie and it kind of benefited from that. The direction was at the level it needed to be. It wasn’t really that great, and its really more the writing that stood out as opposed to the direction.
Lady Bird is pretty great. Greta Gerwig’s writing was wonderful, the acting (particularly from Saoirse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf) was great and it was just a really enjoyable movie that does some unique things. While I’m not sure that I’m loving it as much as everyone else, I do think that it is really worth seeing. Greta Gerwig’s directional debut was really good and I can’t wait to see her do even more work.
Review at blog thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/lady-bird-2017-review/
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Jan 19, 2018 21:23:29 GMT
Paddington 2 review
The first Paddington was surprisingly good, it was funny it was enjoyable, it was a really solid family movie. So I was naturally interested in a sequel and with the returning cast and crew involved with the sequel it seemed it would be good. I haven’t seen the original film in a few years but I can say that Paddington 2 is about as good as the original, with much of what make the first film work so well making a return here.
Like with the original, Paul King wrote the sequel and I’m glad that he has. Once again it balances everything incredibly well and from start to finish is very entertaining to watch. It pretty much has everything that a good family movie should have. Kids will love it and adults can enjoy this as well, it’s not just for kids. The humour is effective and will hit with everyone. It is also very sweet and whimsical but never feels cheesy or forced, it feels genuine. Paddington 2 is an hour and 43 minutes long and it’s a good length, it doesn’t overstay it’s welcome and is long enough that its satisfying. Also without spoiling anything, it has the perfect ending. Also, it’s worth staying around in the early credits, there is a fun little sequence that follows.
The returning cast were great. Ben Wishaw is still a perfect voice choice for Paddington, so likable and innocent. The Browns played by Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Julie Walters, Madeleine Harris and Samuel Joslin were once again good here. The newer cast were also quite good. Hugh Grant was the villain here, here he plays a self obsessed and over the top actor and Grant was very into his role and was very entertaining. He’s not as threatening as Nicole Kidman’s villain from the previous Paddington, though he wasn’t meant to be, and for what Grant is doing he did a great job. Other supporting actors like Jim Broadbent, Peter Capaldi and Brendan Gleeson were also good, Gleeson in particular was a great addition.
Paul King, director of the original Paddington returns and once again did a great job. Visually this film is quite colourful and the direction is just right for the film. There are especially some great visual moments that are creative, one of them involves the camera moving into the pop up book with Paddington appearing inside the book. I really do think the direction deserves more credit because the way they execute certain sequences is actually quite genius. The animation on Paddington is still seamless, you know that he is not actually there and that the actors on screen are probably just interacting with a tennis ball but it never looks or seems fake.
Once again, its been a few years since I’ve seen the original Paddington so I can’t comment too much on how they compare but Paddington 2 is probably around the same level of quality. It’s fun, it’s entertaining, it’s heartwarming, and it’s great for the whole family. If you liked the first film, I can’t see why you wouldn’t like the sequel. I’m actually on board with a Paddington 3, the first 2 were so good that I can’t see why a third movie wouldn’t be at the same level of quality.
thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2018/01/20/paddington-2-2017-review/
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Jan 21, 2018 21:25:58 GMT
My review of Molly's Game
I was pretty interested in Molly’s Game. Not only does it have a cast with Jessica Chastain, Idris Elba, Michael Cera and Kevin Costner and based on a true story, but also Aaron Sorkin along with writing the script would be making his directional debut with this film. Aaron Sorkin has written The Social Network, Steve Jobs, A Few Good Men, Moneyball and much more, so naturally I was excited to see how he would do. For a directional debut, Aaron Sorkin did a pretty great job. Molly’s Game is a very good movie with the script and the performances being the highlights.
Aaron Sorkin is a fantastic writer, so the fact that Molly’s Game is very well written shouldn’t come as such a big surprise. The dialogue is fantastic as to be expected. This really is a movie that requires you to fully focus on it because of how much information is shown, mostly through narration. There are some bits where it can be a bit complicated and I wasn’t fully grasping absolutely everything. However, even if you get lost at points, you can usually have a general understanding of what’s going on because the movie does pretty well at explaining most things. I was interested and riveted in this story from start to finish. In terms of flaws, the movie jumps between different time periods and while you can tell within the first 10 seconds which time period it is, it nonetheless feels very jarring when it does change. Also tis movie is long, its 2 hours and 20 minutes long and you can really feel the length. It doesn’t necessarily drag but you really do feel its length. With that said, off the top of my head I can’t think of any particular scene that I would remove but there would probably be some scenes that aren’t as relevant or important as others.
Jessica Chastain is typically great, she’s one of the best actresses working today and always brings her A game to ever movie she’s in. She’s playing a real life person who you are really rooting for. Very interesting character (real life person), which is compliment by an excellent performance by Chastain. Idris Elba is also really good as Molly’s lawyer. There are especially a couple scenes in the third act where he really gets to shine. Michael Cera is surprisingly really good, playing the character of Player X, who may or may not be based on Tobey Maguire (it definitely is). It’s a small role and he’s not in the movie too much but Cera does well to make an impression. On another note, when you are watching Molly’s Game, just picture Tobey Maguire in Michael Cera’s role, it makes things a lot more interesting and revealing. Kevin Costner also is good as Molly’s father, the two have a difficult and complicated relationship and Costner did very well in his role.
Aaron Sorkin did very well at directing Molly’s Game for a directional debut. The movie stylised and fast paced at times and it all fitted well together. There is a lot of narration, which often can feel like an easy way of dumping exposition but on top of the writing being excellent, Sorkin integrated it into the film very well. You can kind of tell that Sorkin’s writing in Molly’s Game is better than his direction, but that’s to be expected given that this is the first movie that he directed. Besides, for a first movie he did very well.
Molly’s Game is a really good movie, quite interesting and entertaining for the majority of the runtime. The performances were great (with Chastain, Elba and Cera being the highlights) and Aaron Sorkin was fantastic at both writing and directing here. I’m looking forward to seeing Aaron Sorkin direct more films because he showed that he can direct a solid movie, and I can only see him getting better and better at directing the more movies he makes.
thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2018/01/22/mollys-game-2017/
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Jan 23, 2018 20:33:02 GMT
My review of Call Me by Your Name
I heard a lot of excellent things about Call Me by Your Name, it is one of the big awards movies of 2017. So, I had high hopes while keeping my expectations in check before going into it. Before I continue I will confess that I don’t exactly love this movie. Not that there’s anything majorly wrong with Call Me by Your Name, I just really wasn’t invested in much of the movie as I should’ve been. However, I still do think that this is still a good movie, with some solid performances, and excellent direction.
Call Me by Your Name is based off a book, I haven’t read the book so I can’t comment on how they compare. Honestly there’s not much that I can say about this movie. If I was to pinpoint the main reason I didn’t love this movie was that I didn’t have any sort of connection with the romance, story or the characters. Don’t get me wrong, I can like romance movies, the Before Trilogy, Carol, La La Land, I really love them. However, there’s something missing here and it’s the emotional connection. The romance here is more subtle but there are films who have more subtle romances but you really feel an emotional connection (Carol being a strong example). Here I didn’t feel emotionally connected to the romance at all, while the characters aren’t unlikable, I didn’t care about them and how things would end. It seems didn’t quite have the emotional impact on me that it did on others, I was just watching events and the romance progress and I hate to say is but I was very indifferent to the whole thing. This movie is a little long at 2 hours and 10 minutes but I don’t think the problem is the length, it was more so the fact that I just wasn’t invested in this story. My general feeling of this movie is that its just fine. Thankfully the rest of the movie has much stronger elements.
The acting is all pretty good. Timothée Chalamet is great as the lead character, who is going through his coming of age story and discovering his sexuality. Armie Hammer also does a good job and both Chalamet and Hammer have good chemistry. Despite Chalamet and Hammer being pretty good, to me the stand out performance to me was from Michael Stahlburg as Chalamet’s father. There is a particular scene in the third act with him that people are raving over and it is well deserved because he was fantastic.
Even though I don’t love Call Me by Your Name, I have to strongly praise the excellent direction by Luca Guadagnino. The cinematography by Sayombhu Mukdeeprom is absolutely beautiful, they really makes use of its location in Italy. The music is also great, especially the score by Sufjan Stevens. Directionwise I have no issues.
Despite everything that I said, I do think that Call Me by Your Name is a solid movie. The performances are good (especially from Stahlburg) and the direction was absolutely beautiful. It’s just that although some aspects about the romance worked (including and especially the leads’ chemistry), I felt emotionally disconnected and I really didn’t care too much about what was going on. And the romance is such an integral part of the movie so that really brought it down for me. I’m probably part of a small minority when it comes to this movie however, most people love it and I think that it is worth watching for yourself.
My review of Call Me by Your Name
thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/call-me-by-your-name-2017-review/
|
|
|
|
Post by mortimer605 on Jan 23, 2018 21:23:24 GMT
My review of Call Me by Your Name
I heard a lot of excellent things about Call Me by Your Name, it is one of the big awards movies of 2017. So, I had high hopes while keeping my expectations in check before going into it. Before I continue I will confess that I don’t exactly love this movie. Not that there’s anything majorly wrong with Call Me by Your Name, I just really wasn’t invested in much of the movie as I should’ve been. However, I still do think that this is still a good movie, with some solid performances, and excellent direction.
Call Me by Your Name is based off a book, I haven’t read the book so I can’t comment on how they compare. Honestly there’s not much that I can say about this movie. If I was to pinpoint the main reason I didn’t love this movie was that I didn’t have any sort of connection with the romance, story or the characters. Don’t get me wrong, I can like romance movies, the Before Trilogy, Carol, La La Land, I really love them. However, there’s something missing here and it’s the emotional connection. The romance here is more subtle but there are films who have more subtle romances but you really feel an emotional connection (Carol being a strong example). Here I didn’t feel emotionally connected to the romance at all, while the characters aren’t unlikable, I didn’t care about them and how things would end. It seems didn’t quite have the emotional impact on me that it did on others, I was just watching events and the romance progress and I hate to say is but I was very indifferent to the whole thing. This movie is a little long at 2 hours and 10 minutes but I don’t think the problem is the length, it was more so the fact that I just wasn’t invested in this story. My general feeling of this movie is that its just fine. Thankfully the rest of the movie has much stronger elements.
The acting is all pretty good. Timothée Chalamet is great as the lead character, who is going through his coming of age story and discovering his sexuality. Armie Hammer also does a good job and both Chalamet and Hammer have good chemistry. Despite Chalamet and Hammer being pretty good, to me the stand out performance to me was from Michael Stahlburg as Chalamet’s father. There is a particular scene in the third act with him that people are raving over and it is well deserved because he was fantastic.
Even though I don’t love Call Me by Your Name, I have to strongly praise the excellent direction by Luca Guadagnino. The cinematography by Sayombhu Mukdeeprom is absolutely beautiful, they really makes use of its location in Italy. The music is also great, especially the score by Sufjan Stevens. Directionwise I have no issues.
Despite everything that I said, I do think that Call Me by Your Name is a solid movie. The performances are good (especially from Stahlburg) and the direction was absolutely beautiful. It’s just that although some aspects about the romance worked (including and especially the leads’ chemistry), I felt emotionally disconnected and I really didn’t care too much about what was going on. And the romance is such an integral part of the movie so that really brought it down for me. I’m probably part of a small minority when it comes to this movie however, most people love it and I think that it is worth watching for yourself.
My review of Call Me by Your Name
thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/call-me-by-your-name-2017-review/
Yeah, my thoughts about this movie are similar to yours. Maybe hype was great during all these months so some degree of disappointment is expected. Everything here is remarkable - direction, acting, cinematography, use of classic music and songs etc. It's like high-class Merchant-Ivory production mixed with Luca Guadagnino's sensual style in the best way possible. But I didn't care for Elio and Oliver that much as I should tbh. Watching this I thought I had already seen this story before many times.
Michael Stuhlbarg's speech was great. Love scene (one with the window and tree) was a little old-fashioned; you'd expect to see something like this in a LGBT movie from 1990s but not 2010s.
Ending was very good, realistic and touching (Carol ending was all that but looked pretty epic and magnificent in comparison).
Also, I'm possibly alone on this one but I find Elio's parents rather unbelievable (even for open-minded, cool 1980s European intelectuals). They looked more like phantasy dream than real people. Some conflict, even minor one, was what was missing about them.
Need to watch again in a month or two.
|
|
|
|
Post by renoh on Jan 23, 2018 22:30:27 GMT
My review of Call Me by Your Name
I heard a lot of excellent things about Call Me by Your Name, it is one of the big awards movies of 2017. So, I had high hopes while keeping my expectations in check before going into it. Before I continue I will confess that I don’t exactly love this movie. Not that there’s anything majorly wrong with Call Me by Your Name, I just really wasn’t invested in much of the movie as I should’ve been. However, I still do think that this is still a good movie, with some solid performances, and excellent direction.
Call Me by Your Name is based off a book, I haven’t read the book so I can’t comment on how they compare. Honestly there’s not much that I can say about this movie. If I was to pinpoint the main reason I didn’t love this movie was that I didn’t have any sort of connection with the romance, story or the characters. Don’t get me wrong, I can like romance movies, the Before Trilogy, Carol, La La Land, I really love them. However, there’s something missing here and it’s the emotional connection. The romance here is more subtle but there are films who have more subtle romances but you really feel an emotional connection (Carol being a strong example). Here I didn’t feel emotionally connected to the romance at all, while the characters aren’t unlikable, I didn’t care about them and how things would end. It seems didn’t quite have the emotional impact on me that it did on others, I was just watching events and the romance progress and I hate to say is but I was very indifferent to the whole thing. This movie is a little long at 2 hours and 10 minutes but I don’t think the problem is the length, it was more so the fact that I just wasn’t invested in this story. My general feeling of this movie is that its just fine. Thankfully the rest of the movie has much stronger elements.
The acting is all pretty good. Timothée Chalamet is great as the lead character, who is going through his coming of age story and discovering his sexuality. Armie Hammer also does a good job and both Chalamet and Hammer have good chemistry. Despite Chalamet and Hammer being pretty good, to me the stand out performance to me was from Michael Stahlburg as Chalamet’s father. There is a particular scene in the third act with him that people are raving over and it is well deserved because he was fantastic.
Even though I don’t love Call Me by Your Name, I have to strongly praise the excellent direction by Luca Guadagnino. The cinematography by Sayombhu Mukdeeprom is absolutely beautiful, they really makes use of its location in Italy. The music is also great, especially the score by Sufjan Stevens. Directionwise I have no issues.
Despite everything that I said, I do think that Call Me by Your Name is a solid movie. The performances are good (especially from Stahlburg) and the direction was absolutely beautiful. It’s just that although some aspects about the romance worked (including and especially the leads’ chemistry), I felt emotionally disconnected and I really didn’t care too much about what was going on. And the romance is such an integral part of the movie so that really brought it down for me. I’m probably part of a small minority when it comes to this movie however, most people love it and I think that it is worth watching for yourself.
My review of Call Me by Your Name
thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/call-me-by-your-name-2017-review/
Yeah, my thoughts about this movie are similar to yours. Maybe hype was great during all these months so some degree of disappointment is expected. Everything here is remarkable - direction, acting, cinematography, use of classic music and songs etc. It's like high-class Merchant-Ivory production mixed with Luca Guadagnino's sensual style in the best way possible. But I didn't care for Elio and Oliver that much as I should tbh. Watching this I thought I had already seen this story before many times.
Michael Stuhlbarg's speech was great. Love scene (one with the window and tree) was a little old-fashioned; you'd expect to see something like this in a LGBT movie from 1990s but not 2010s.
Ending was very good, realistic and touching (Carol ending was all that but looked pretty epic and magnificent in comparison).
Also, I'm possibly alone on this one but I find Elio's parents rather unbelievable (even for open-minded, cool 1980s European intelectuals). They looked more like phantasy dream than real people. Some conflict, even minor one, was what was missing about them.
Need to watch again in a month or two.
The only reason why this movie make it in my top 10 in the last spot was because of how it looked. I was between this one and The Beguiled, but I guess it was Armie dancing to Love my way that pushed my decision  , yeah I know, I’m weak. It looked good thanks to cinematography but I think the camera didn’t captured well how they were falling in love. I agree, the understanding dad was not believable at all during the 80s, he was more believable as a Joaquin Phoenix coming back from the future. Nobody can take out Carol of my #1 LGBT movie spot. |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Jan 25, 2018 20:12:37 GMT
My review of Good Time
I had been hearing some pretty good things about Good Time for a while, it received a 6 minute standing ovation at the 2017 Cannes Film Festival. Much of the praise was focused towards the direction and Robert Pattinson’s performance. So I was definitely excited for what I was going to watch. I’m happy to say that Good Time definitely lived up to all the hype and praise and deserves a lot more attention than it’s been getting.
Good Time is a very straightforward movie, Robert Pattinson has to save his brother in one night and from start to finish it delivers. However, the way they did it was so fantastic. First of all, it feels very realistic and gritty, from the story to the dialogue and characters. The movie despite its title isn’t really a “good time” (it is however a good time in the sense that it is a good movie), it is quite dark and there aren’t many bright spots, even the main character isn’t really likable at all and does some very questionable things. I have to give the Safdie Brothers credit for sticking with this approach because it made the movie better. This movie is 1 hour 40 minutes long and honestly that was the perfect length, the film takes place just over a night and it really benefited from that. The film keeps you riveted from start to finish and there is a constant sense of urgency and tension. I won’t say much about the plot, honestly it’s better going in not knowing a lot about the plot.
Just like Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson has shown how great of an actor he is post Twilight and should be taken seriously. Putting the general perception of him aside, Pattinson is fantastic here. His character doesn’t have many redeeming qualities, he is very manipulative towards pretty much everyone he encounters and goes to some low levels throughout the movie. The only thing keeping us kind of rooting for him is his connection with his brother. Robert Pattinson is absolutely transformative, not once do you think that this is the guy from Twilight, you just see the character, which is one of the highest compliments that one can give to a performance. Pattinson deserves a lot of praise for his performance here and I hope we get to see more of his talents in future films. Ben Safdie (who’s also one of the directors of the film) plays Pattinson’s mentally challenged brother and although he doesn’t have a massive amount of screentime he was great. Other supporting actor performances from actors like Jennifer Jason Leigh and Barkhad Abdi are good for the short screentime that they have and they all contribute and add to the movie. However aside from all that, it is really Robert Pattinson who gets to shine the most.
This is the fourth film that The Safdie Brothers directed together and the first film I’ve seen of theirs and I can say that they are definitely very talented after seeing Good Time. The night-time scenes in particular are so well filmed, a stand out aspect being the use of colour, they were so well utilised. There is particularly also a sequence which takes place in an amusement park which was directed very well. The film has a constant sense of urgency and the way it was directed and edited really added to that. Throughout the movie there is a lot of close up shots of people’s faces (maybe a little too much) which I guess is done to make things feel claustrophobic, it may be annoying for some people but I was fine with it. The music was also excellent, the use of synth really did add to the film and is used so well, often adding to the sense of urgency.
Good Time was one of the most pleasant surprises of 2017. It has a very gritty, realistic and dark story, great direction from the Safdie Brothers and featured an excellent lead performance by Robert Pattinson, which is one of the best performances of the year (and unfortunately didn’t get enough praise). I can’t wait to see more films from the Safdie Brothers, they’ve definitely shown that their talents with this movie. I also feel like it could possibly benefit from rewatches and I can’t wait to revisit it. Good Time is definitely worth a watch and more praise, at least more praise than its been getting.
thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2018/01/26/good-time-2017-review/
|
|
