I think I wrote before that if you've seen a movie by Woody Allen, you've seen them all, or to not sound that mean, at least a part of each of them. So, that's why I've never liked much Woody Allen = it just seemed boring. There are just two categories - romantic comedies or dramas with some hint of romance. But either my taste got "softened" by my age, or I started finding also some which have a slightly different nuance in the extremely prolific repertoire of the aforementioned (after all, at one movie per year it's actually hard I guess to find variation). "Magic in the Moonlight" is one of these more fortunate case, or at least this is what the trailer suggests...
Sometime in the 1920s: Stanley is a well-known magician, going with Wei Ling Soo as stage name, who besides the artistic career also formed a reputation of debunking fake mediums. So, he cannot resist the invitation of a fellow magician, old childhood friend, who asks him to investigate Sophie, a young lady posing as able to talk to spirits, who infiltrated into a rich family somewhere in South of France, making them believe she's the only way to contact the late head of the house. That's the starting point, and it doesn't sound bad at all.
The movie's part of the comedy area of Woody Allen, and it obviously keeps a lot of the specific elements = the characters construction, dialogues, etc. However, the context that's slightly more exotic and the location elements that add to the general feeling making it look a bit more like something by Alexander Payne ("Sideways", "Descendants"), give the movie some originality, enough to make it look different than just another episode of an anthology series. It's not something to stir strong laughs, but it has its humor, and even though it doesn't try to rival with Agatha Christie on keeping the mystery = you get quite quickly the answer on "who's the killer" in the story, it still doesn't lose you. That's because you have something left - to see how the romance evolves in all the context (even though that's predictable too). Probably this is also the disappointing part, in the sense that you'll probably expect something more elaborate, not just the simplistic solution you're offered. But after all, it's a light movie, relaxing, and not trying more than that. Something for a vacation :) Just the opportunity to end my 2019 chapter with a: Happy Holidays! & hopefully a better new year to come ;)
To be clear from start where we stand, and since I'm not in the best writing mood and also I don't want to get too long, for me "The Irishman" compared to "Goodfellas" seemed like the new "Jumanji" vs. the old "Jumanji" (the new = the one of two years ago, because for the latest one I won't lose time anymore). Yeah, I know that the new "Jumanji" is ranked better than the old one (maybe I'm getting older, but... come on), exactly the way "The Irishman" got in a couple days to be considered by at least a part of the critics as the best of Scorsese. Really?...
So, I said I don't want to get long with this = if you want the full story, Wikipedia search for Jimmy Hoffa, union leader in the '70s in US with some mafia connections, and the unfortunate protagonist of one the most controversial disappearances ever, not solved by today. Unofficially, at 30 years after the event, an Irish guy from the close circle of Hoffa, Frank Sheeran, on his death bed makes a stunning confession - he killed Hoffa... and also Joe Gallo, another mobster who's killer's left unknown... and even other hits of the same type... and also transported weapons for the Bay of Pigs invasion. All these so cleverly put together, that he didn't get charged for any, and the FBI still has the case officially unsolved. It's an excellent subject for a best-seller, and now for a top grossing movie. I don't say that everything's fake, but still it looks too much like a fishing story, and the fish might not be that big.
But the movie, how is the movie.. well, even the new "Jumanji" is ok in some parts. "The Irishman" starts well, with a bit of a "Godfather" feeling that you don't meet nowadays anymore, but soon it starts to hit you with some not so nice stuff. The effects and/or make-up to rejuvenate De Niro didn't look more artificial since "J. Edgar". De Niro is more Italian than Irish, and as well as he gets his role played, it doesn't really completely belong there - in comparison is enough to look at Ray Stevenson in "Kill the Irishman", a much less pretentious movie some years ago, also set in the mob wars niche. Hoffa didn't have Italian roots as Pacino has, although here the contrast is not so big, but again, Jack Nicholson in "Hoffa" directed by Danny De Vito, which I've seen long long ago still stays in my mind as more credible. On the other hand, we have a comeback on screen after a very long break of Joe Pesci, which is indeed and undeniable made for the role he plays.
What's left to say - the movie is very long, and the ending even longer - I've never had this feeling of extra unnecessary lengths anywhere else except "LoTR: Return of the King" after the ring is melted, or in the latest "Avengers", after... well, I don't remember after what, completely forgettable. Even so, it's a movie to see. Until the end, the script is written sufficiently ok to keep you there. Technically: camera work, editing (minus the effects I was saying) is top class. And if that doesn't move you, at least for the fact that you don't get to see much often something in this genre that reaches a decent quality.
As usual, there aren't many title yet announced for next Spring, so there's not much room for a selection. To get into the subject, for next March we have a remake of "Mulan", live motion this time. The first trailer doesn't say much, but given that it's a remake I doubt any spoilers were required.
In April we move off from the usual "X-Men" line in "The New Mutants", with a much darker look, so probably a bit more mature. The only part that seems to connect the two is the Marvel logo. I say that's promising, or at least interesting.
Finally, in May we have the already postponed released date for "Artemis Fowl", a potential successor of "Harry Potter" = the first episode that moves to the big screen based on another series of books in the same genre.
We end, therefore, this round of preview = back to difficult stuff = let's see what subject I manage to find out for the next entry ;)
I'll make permanent this "brief" version for previews, with just one entry per month. Not that I'd like to get rid of it quicker, but because there's really not much choice for more titles that show some promise. Maybe I'm getting too old, grumpy & picky, but well... that's life.
For December I tried to find something else that's more interesting than the last episode of the "Star Wars" saga, but I couldn't (really, I watched 12 more trailers having their release set for next month until I gave up). And unfortunately not because "The Rise of Skywalker" is very interesting - given that there are enough spoilers, and even seemingly more enough cliches in it. I said that I'm old, grumpy & picky. But let's keep some hope...
January has a better offer, but by far the title that seems to be the choice to watch is "The Gentlemen", or finally Guy Ritchie's return to the genre that made him a great director.
I gave up on horrors since some time. A while ago a director was saying in an interview that this is the most accessible genre that allows you the largest boundaries on creativity (ironically this was in a "making of" for a very poor movie). There are some studios that got specialized more or less on this niche (Blumhouse, Screen Gems, etc.), which keep repeating a couple recipes where they just change some ingredient. In February we have "Fantasy Island", which seems though to bring at least a setting that's a bit different. Not much, but at least we move out of the ghosts and other evil area which is lately beyond overused.
As I said it in other years, for the usual weekly entry I'm choosing what subject I can pick (if I can pick) from what I've seen in the days nearby, but for each blog anniversary and end-of-year I'm trying a bit more to find a title that's worth to be watched. Unfortunately, if in the beginnings of this I was reserving some time to see at least 3 movies, for some years I'm more focused on carefully choosing, hoping to find "the lucky one" from the first try, because there's no time for a second one. Now, I realize that I even got late to the "carefully choosing" part. Ergo: no chance for a 5/5. But "Extra Ordinary" is still a bit more than "ordinary" :)
Somewhere in Ireland: Rose Dooley is an auto instructor and the daughter + apprentice of the famous Vincent Dooley, ghost exorcist and paranormal expert. Former exorcist actually, because during a badly ended session he got crushed by a truck. So Rose, traumatized by the event, tries to focus on her more domestic job, although the community seems more productive in restless spirits and rising the number of scared potential customers than in people needing a driving license. And like that we get to Martin Martin who still lives with his late wife, deceased since 10 years. "The plot thickens", to directly quote the character, when Christian Winter, a "one-hit wonder" singer, having moved to Ireland to evade taxes, and becoming an expert in satanic rituals to find his way towards the 2nd-hit wonder, sets his eyes on Sarah Martin, the daughter of Martin Martin.
There's enough I guess to not get into spoilers. The movie is something like "Ghostbusters" meets Edgar Wright & Simon Pegg, but without Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg. We have the same feel and dark humor as in "Shaun of the Dead" or "Hot Fuzz". Sometimes it might seem a bit silly, but everything is forgotten when we reach the final crescendo, getting more & more crazy by each scene, reaching its climax at the end (really, even for the VFX, where there's a major contrast with what you'd expect for the low-budget you just watched). It's not a masterpiece, but the actors are ok, the script is ok, we have a minimalist score that fits well, and most important: I laughed. And that doesn't happen often lately when seeing comedies (that's why I'm actually typically avoiding these).
Rating: 3.5 out of 5
So, that's it for the 12 year anniversary. I still persist in continuing with probably the most unread blog in the country as views/days of existence :) (presumption not verified but highly probable). But well, moving on ;)...
I watched "Deadwood", the series, much more recently than their production date (2004-2006). Which offered me some decent continuity for "Deadwood: The Movie", released this year by HBO. I'm not gonna make some complete description of all the story - despite the fact that's a relative short TV show at 3 seasons, there's still plenty of content there. However, I thought it deserves an entry, especially for the movie set at 13 years after the initial ending, which in the very narrow niche of "extra closures" for various series it's probably an example of "how to do it". Or at least a very interesting approach in an impossible context, out of which many screenwriters could take some lessons (not that I'm watching many series, but I felt the need for a while to make some counter reference to the last episode of GoT... especially after being nominated for an Emmy for best writing...).
So, to make it short, the context of the series is the life in a small settlement near some gold mining area, Deadwood, somewhere in South Dakota, close to the end of the 19th century. And in the last episode from 2006, everything is ended in what's pretty much the series semi-gloomy tone, something like: life is tough and happy-ends are fairy tales. More precisely, one of the main characters, Al Swearengen, owner of a "saloon" and a pillar of making things working in the community, has to kill one of his "world's oldest profession” employees, an innocent woman, in order to save another who tried to murder a wealthy businessman, George Hearst. A magnate, who using some unorthodox methods (= via contract killers) wants to take over the entire place. As I was saying, there's no time to get into much more other soapy details, but one thing is essential: Deadwood is real. The place exists. The history of the place exists. Many of the series characters were real. And if the life and ending of some got lost in time, leaving room for "romancing" it on TV, in some other cases doing that is not easy. George Hearst in particular, the main villain towards the series ending, was one of the richest men in the US at that time, getting to be a senator, and being the father of probably the more famous William Randolph Hearst, a press tycoon, and the inspiration for "Citizen Kane". If he was so evil as "Deadwood" suggests, I have no clue... But that's what the screenwriters chose, and the last series had to end with Hearst doing well and leaving the community smiling, while the people left behind are more or less agonizing after his actions. If you're not Tarantino in "Inglorious Basterds", it's hard to rewrite the history radically and put in the movie a happy end vendetta vs. somebody who lived many more years after briefly passing through Deadwood.
Unfortunately, this total lack of happy-end yearns for some other kind of closure, which as I was saying, in the historical context, seems somehow impossible. Well, after many years, the same screenwriters found a way, and like that we got "Deadwood: The Movie", where suprise, surprise, 10 year in the movie after the latest events, the villain is still George Hearst, coming back to Deadwood, still for business and still using the approach of "who doesn't breath anymore, cannot say no anymore". Only that this time, we have the payback. Without rewriting history, although probably that part is not in the history books :). I won't give spoilers, but the way the movie manages to close some narrative threads is... let's say surprisingly pleasing, and it's not about a happy-end, because there's not 100% like that. And again, this works in a context adapted from real facts with limitations, not in a fantasy where you can write whatever you want ( couldn't help it :) ).
T6 aka "Dark Fate" is indeed dark. Despite not being shot in 3D, the luminosity coefficient in some scenes makes you wonder if you should remove some invisible stereoscopic glasses. But that's not the biggest problem. Sorry, spoilers will follow...
All the "Terminator" series, except "Salvation", has pretty much the same story. We have a terminator sent back in time to terminate somebody, and somebody else struggling to stop the killing machine. And despite the repetition factor, the story works. How? Well, we have variation. The first one is man vs machine, the second is machine vs machine where the good machine = the bad machine from the first, the third is Kristanna Loken vs machine, etc, and so on. But variation moves forward than what vs. who/what. We do have a story. And even in this last part we have some story, until we realize it's a bit too much... the same. Linda Hamilton returns from T2, the target is a new Linda as in T1, on the good side we have a sort of a female terminator like in T3, which is actually an enhanced human, almost like in T4, and Schwarzenegger is an aging terminator who started developing something close to feeling (almost) like in T5, and we wrap up with an ending which wants to be a sort of reboot of the metal melting onw in T2 using this time some EMP and electrical discharges, totally stupid and inspiring a feeling of cheap copy - after more than 20 years of VFX evolution. So, we don't have much innovation in the story.
Even so, it wouldn't have been that bad if the production level would've been decent. But we have piles of cliche lines in the script, we have a lot of bad acting/overacting, we have poor camera work, we have an excess of VFX to supplement the lack of narrative material, we have the first situation when the screenwriters were actually lazy to try finding a connection point that would make some sense in relation with the previous production, and they've cut the story and resumed it immediately after T2. Which purpose is canceled from start - John Connor dies, so Skynet would win, but well.. Skynet is not Skynet in the future anymore, it's Legion, and we don't know why Skynet is Legion since John Connor died, but there's no problem, we'll just turn the public's attention to deadly fights in depressurized planes. The idea of an enhanced human protector brings though some original elements, and also Rev. 9 - the evil terminator model, comes with a doppelganger mode, completely inexplicable and not explained, but which looks cool. And of course, there's the old T-800 announcing that this time he'll "not be back" ( pfff... what a way out... :( ).
Rating: 3 out of 5 (= 2+1 - I'm nostalgic and subjective, but the review was objective ;)...)
"You know what kind of plan never fails? No plan. You know why? If you make a plan, life never works out that way." That's the approximate translation for what could be "Parasite"'s tagline. I agree with the first answer. That's an axiom, not much to contradict there. I don't agree though with the second. And in the end the movie seems to agree with me ;) (at least indirectly.
An unemployed family in South Korea finds a way to move into the life of an "upper class" family - or to put it more directly: a family that has money. One by one, each of the poor family's members finds a job at the residence of the wealthy, job that's made available with the support of the previous employee: a private English teacher, a combo of a private art theacher + a children psychologist, a driver and a housekeeping lady. The small problem - each employee comes with fake recommendation and identity, and except the first of them the open position for the next to be hired is vacated through highly unorthodox means. Only that, as usual, karma fights back, and when each member of the family got a well paid job, there's a big surprise to show up.
And being a surprise let's not spoil it ;) I found already space left for more, although half the movie is built on this suprise, but there's still something missing. Or some of the development moves to quickly to properly conclude. There are also some other aspects that seemed a bit improper. Light spoiler: the script wants somehow to empathize with the four crooks, at least in the last part this being obvious, the characters being given some sort of positive aura. But comparing this with "Shoplifters", the Asian brother with a Cannes trophy, if there this approach worked, here it seemed a bit hard to movie over the first half. Despite my personal opinion that people can change, this wasn't very obvious here, so... Conclusion: I almost always found overrated the Cannes winning movies, and the exception that confirms the rule = "Shoplifters" passed. There are still many positive facts: the typical Korean dark humor, the attempt to shock, the actors, the score, etc. So it's a good movie, but not a very good one ;)
1. It's been a while since I'm trying to do a strict selection of what I watch - unfortunately time is limited, movies to pick from not. 2. "London Fields" was a guilty pleasure - where after watching I'd say it was more guilty and less pleasure. 3. IMDb gives it 4.3, Metacritic ranks at 16/100, and RottenTomatoes shows an epic 0% for this title, which should be more than enough as a red flag of "stay away!" - but Amber Heard has green eyes, and eventually I gave up resisting...
...in my defense: not before finding out that there is a director's cut, apparently a bit better than the initial version released a year ago. To be honest, I'm not sure what version I did watch, but from what I heard I tend to think it was the one which is at least a bit better edited. Meaning that we have some continuity in the action, which you can follow, compared to the chaotic development I heard it's present in the initial version. Now, about the contents of this action, oh well...
"London Fields" wants to be a neo-noir mystery set around a femme fatale: Nicola Six, who enter a bar some day, where she intersects her path with 3 guys, and has a vision of her own death at her 30th anniversary being cause by one of them. Only that she doesn't know who's the murderer... an American writer, temporarily moved in London, a drunk darts player, broke and heavily in debt, or a young banker, whose IQ seems similar with the degree of variation in his everyday life. In this context we have a love triangle getting shape (or better said a square), though without getting much sense. Or if there is one, the movie doesn't offer much reason to lose also extra time to look for it. The mystery part is at least partially shattered at a certain moment when you find out that one of the three guys doesn't have much to lose. The neo-noir part is also fading away quite fast due to the directing style, not having many scenes to support it. And still...
There is a certain action thread that the movie follows. Nicola struggles to get money from a guy to pay another one's debt, while the third is observing all of it. It's not very clear why she's doing that. As well as her reaction of accepting the cruel fate. Anyway, with the exception of Jim Sturgess, whose overacting is a bit too "over", the actors do a good job. Despite a gratuitous Razzie nomination, Amber Heard (with all the objectivity I can have) can act, and actually she does a good part here compared to others. There are also a couple scenes of what looks to be the "director's cut" that have some artistic sparkle in them in respect to editing/camera work. Shame though there are a couple more that cancel that. The major problem though is the story and the script - both having Martin Amis as author, who also signed a best-seller with the same name, 30 years ago.
As an objective conclusion, I don't know how the novel managed to gain success, but a bizarre mixture of romance with tons of darts thrown in, barely showing some clear ending, it's probably a good alternative only to a B series movie, instead of a sleeping pill. It can be worse though ("The Counselor" comes to my mind). At least here I didn't expect anything. Anyway, as another option of a mystery with a sort of a femme fatale central character, I reviewed a while ago "A Simple Favor". Much more clever, and overall much, much, much better.
Rating: 2 out of 5 ( objectively ;) - subjectively +0.5 :P )
I was thinking about which tagline would sound better: "from Road Trip to Joker" or "much ado about nothing", but both are bit unfair, although also both hold some truth.
Does it make any sense to do a synopsis of the story? Let's do like that: this is not a superhero universe movie. I don't even think it has DC Comics mentioned in the opening titles, which are very '70s - including the Warner Bros logo of that time. That was promising. At least for me, who I'm fed up with the most successful recipe to cash in from cinema in the last 15 years. Well... correction... -this does not seem- to be the same superhero universe as the latest Justice League or Avengers (oh yes, I've put them in the same sentence - not much difference). Of course we are set in Gotham, when Bruce Wayne was living his childhood and wasn't using his bat wings yet. Arthur Fleck is a lonely guy, with a neurological problem, periodically generating hysterical laughing, kept under control with plenty of medication, besides probably many other psychiatric issues. The guy lives with his mother, and has a lousy job as a clown hired on various events. Predictably, when it seems that things going wrong will go even more wrong, that happens. The job is lost, the social assistance also, the medication along it, as well as the self-control, followed by several murders and like that from Arthur Fleck we get to Joker. Well, I finally did a sort of synopsis... Probably not a very comprehensive one, but that wasn't my intention.
And it wasn't my intention because the movie is very very linear. That's the main issue. You have some little mystery, with a scent of soap-opera at some time concerning the abandoned mother who sent letters all her life to Thomas Wayne, the father of the future Batman, but it doesn't take long to have that mystery solved. And since this is pretty much the single digression from a line where you know at least 5 minutes ahead what's gonna happen, I'll refrain from more spoilers. Besides that, as a story at least, doesn't bring any surprise. And now, the taglines...
"From Road Trip to Joker": Todd Phillips has been directing almost only light comedies since year 2000. His association to Joker (no pun intended) was somehow surprising, and the critics rushed a bit on lowering the expectancy, at least until the title role was attributed to Joaquin Phoenix. Obviously neither "Road Trip", neither "Hangover", not even "Borat" where Phillips wrote the script, aren't the best references to guarantee a powerful drama as "Joker" wanted to be, and it actually is. So, that's why I was saying that the tagline sounds a bit unfair. If you've seen "War Dogs", the last movie made by Phillips before "Joker", despite all the comic line present there, you can feel already some drama nuances that are quite strong. Although the movie is heavily linear here, from the directing perspective, I highly doubt it could've been done much better. And the script for a "story" like this... well... I would even say that Phillips made wonders with the base material. From a story that can be summarized in three words = crazy guy snaps - he somehow managed to squeeze a sufficiently solid character (obviously the acting has its role here) to make some noise with it. And like that we're getting to...
"Much ado about nothing": Or what are the critics complaining of after release. The American at least, because in Europe the movie was better received. It's said that the movie is dangerous, that it's pushing to violence, that's pro-guns, and others. I'm curious how far can go the degree of filtering a movie through the social-political perspective. Well, I have the luxury of not being a resident of the American continent, where maybe the daily pressure of this factor might have went so far that distinguishing between a movie release and a political declaration is not done anymore. A movie is a movie, is art and should be first an escape from reality not a reference to it. I'll stick to that belief, although there are nuances. I doubt that Todd Phillips wanted to "positivise" the character, or to justify some violence, although it might seem so. A complex character is complex because it has its good and its bad, and here we have a solid construction that includes both, but that's something to appreciate not to criticize + after all, in the end, bottom line, what's left is a negative character. Even more, I doubt there was any intention for a movie associated with any left or right wing protests or movement. It doesn't even deserve debating. But well... For who's not smart enough and takes directly the idea of solving an issue with a gun, or connects what you can see in a fictive Gotham city and what's near you in the real life, then... well... it's indeed a movie that's harsh and strong enough to exert a direct influence. And that might make it dangerous indeed. But that depends on how smart is the viewer and doesn't throw any blame on the director ;)
I lost tracks on how many times I've put "The Kid Who Would Be King" on pause until finishing it. I guess it's a personal record of something like 6-7 times over 5 days. The funny part is that the first half of the movie, which I had to fragment a lot seemed much better than the second half. Long story short: we have a re-telling of the knights of the round table, where the role of Arthur is given to a boy in London who finds Excalibur in a stone forgotten near some construction yard, and from that moment is doomed to save the country. The threat: Morgana + a hord of undead who will take over at the next total eclipse = in 4 days.
The movie is somewhere between Narnia and Harry Potter. Meaning that the target audience is between 10-15 years old, but it's not that light, it works for older people too. I decided to watch it despite not having high hopes since it's been quite a while since I've seen a decent fantasy. In some parts I'd say it's actually more promising than the examples referenced before. The problem is that you feel that something's coming: either a part which is too much for kids, either on the border of getting ridiculous. And it comes indeed... and it goes away... and it comes again. Anyway... on the plus side:
- it's more fantasy than what the trailer suggests
- it has a top notch production design (really, I was surprised), decent VFX and some cool camera work
- the score has a fine touch of synth, barely present there, but still enough to make it count
- Patrick Stewart as the old Merlin
Unfortunately, those parts on the border of getting ridiculous are a bit too... cringe. But it might be a matter of taste = for all the rest it deserves a chance. And definitely for the age of 10-15 is quite ok.
Rating: 2.5 out of 5 ( seen from the 30+ perspective ;) )
As I was saying last time I didn't get to watch "Ad Astra" in the weekend, but I did get, or better said I decided to get to see it on Monday. And I prefer to also not postpone anymore neither the blog entry because I already started forgetting some fresh impressions it left with. Which might make the following very subjective, but I guess it would be hard not to be anyway, so...
I heard before watching the movie that it's slow & boring. Debatable = I won't lie, for the first half I checked my watch a couple times... I also heard either that it gets close to "Gravity", either that it gets close to "Interstellar". I'd say it's more SciFi than the first, but a bit less SciFi than the second. In any case it has definitely much more substance than "Gravity" (to which I'll stick to the opinion of not being more than a simple recipe of a disaster movie set in space + extra VFX bling-bling), which, adding the slow development it has, would make it indeed more close to "Interstellar". But let's leave out the comparisons and move into the subject.
In the future the humanity established colonies on the Moon, on Mars and managed to send an expedition on Neptun's orbit. The space ship is led by Dr. H. Clifford McBride, having the mission to try a contact with other intelligent species. Only that the status of the expedition seems to have reached a sort of "lost in space" = nobody knows anything about them for as long as almost 30 years. Meanwhile, Dr. McBride was labeled as a space here that took the Earth civilization where no man has gone before. We just end up one day with some periodical surges coming from outer space strong enough to endanger the life in the Solar system. The department of space defense (or something like that) suspects that the cause of origin lies on the lost ship, or more precisely with its captain who is suspected to still be alive. As solution it's decided that Roy McBride, the son, also an astronaut, to be sent to the farthest still functional outpost - on Mars, with the purpose of dispatching a peace message. Only that, predictable enough, the final destination will be a bit more far than that...
That was the story, now the philosophy :) Warning: this is not an action movie - go see Alien for that ;) There's lots of philosophy in the movie, and sometimes it seems it tries to be even more than it is. At least that's the feeling it left me with by its half-time. After that it starts making more sense. Roy McBride is a lonely guy, divorced in order to remove the stress from his family on him getting also lost in space one day (at least that's what he says), very pragmatic and cool enough in panic situations, subjecting to rules and to the orders he gets, the perfect candidate for a critical mission. There are plenty of fine-grained aspects throughout the entire slow development in the first part, which have as purpose exactly the build-up of such a very complex character. Who, in brief, can be labeled as a smarter than average guy, but who knows his place or better said knows not to leave that place. In a total contradiction of character, McBride the father, another smarter than average guy, but for whom moving forward in the goal to find another civilization, or generalizing to surpass the achievements of a normal life, is important enough to sacrifice everything in a normal life: family, coming home, the life of his crew. There's some point towards the end where the movie seems very biased in the comparison of the two: the positive character and the negative character, in the sense of better stay put, be fine with all it's asked, take care of the ones near you, and do your job than dreaming on achieving something that's not there, and step on corpses for that goal. But it's too black and white...
Fortunately, the entire movie is spread with McBride junior monologues, which bring some grey into the picture, even though not very obvious. I don't remember the lines exactly but at some moment we have one saying something like only in the end "I'll find happyness in my loneliness/solitude" + some other, more precise this time (thanks to Google): "I see myself on the outside, smile, present a side. It’s a performance, with my eye on the exit. Always on the exit.", which speculating a bit would say that also the son knows that he could achieve more but it's an accepted choice to not pass some limits, limits that will go away, mentally at least when the life will end. Speculation that's strengthen by the ending monologue (again thanks to Google) delivered as part of a psychological evaluation when finally returning to Earth: "I am focused on the essentials, to the exclusion of all else. I’m unsure of the future, but I’m not concerned. I will rely on those closest to me, and I will share their burdens, as they share mine. I will live and I will love. Submit.". Let's say I completely agree with all this "conclusion" that's delivered in a pretty optimistic note as a happy-end. After all this should count first for a human being. What irritated me, however, is the positive light subliminally put on all this acceptation of conformism for the good of everybody, and the negative light thrown on trying to force a bit your daily life to reach the stars - or to quote also some other source “Non est ad astra mollis e terris via" - "There is no easy way from the earth to the stars” (Seneca). What's even more behind than this subliminal, as I said above it softens this, but that's pure speculation - something like after all you know you won't be happy with your decisions. But even with this hidden meaning, the big part of the grey between the black and white is missing in this movie... Maybe there's a middle way to share their burdens and also get concerned of the future, i.e., to try to reach the stars. Why exclude that completely? At least let the hope live! :) I told that I'm subjective ;) No more. Too much philosophy.
I intended to go watch "Ad Astra" in cinema this weekend, but I didn't find time for it, so I turned to another SciFi that I found easier to get to = "Prospect". Not that bad, just that I'm not sure the SciFi tag is fit for it...
Somewhere in the future, on a far away planet with a toxic atmosphere, a guy and his daughter try a "prospecting" operation (to quote the title), more precisely the harvesting of some sort of gems grown by an indigenous plant. Something like the production of pearls, just with an extra acid ingredient thrown in to make the operation highly difficult. Up to this point, yes, we have a SciFi. Further, we find out that the prospectors are not alone searching for a fortune on the planet, and (light spoiler) the wish of getting rich fast doesn't bring a good end to the guy. Even more, the shuttle for leaving breaks, the oxygen filters run off, and the girl left alone is sort of forced to team up to escape with a rival prospector. Well, we're already at half the movie :) So let's leave the rest to be seen...
As I was telling, although thinking back now there are actually quite a few SciFi elements in it, the feeling you have at the end it's a of sort of action/thriller that could as well take place somewhere in the Amazonian jungle. The story is pretty simple and linear, but somehow the movie doesn't bore. There's some gun with one shot and obviously you need more, there's some oxygen filter running out, there's some need for an ointment for infected wounds, there's some indigenous settler with hidden intentions, there's some other mercs looking for fortune. In brief, there's sort of a ride of one hour and a half in a totally unfriendly environment, with small, but not big surprises. Which is still catchy :)...
I don't know if I may have "spent too much time" in Asia lately, or I just got into a way too critical mood, but "The Heat" was close to unwatchable... close... I don't have other subject, and I doubt I'll find one before the end of the week. So, this is what it is...
I said before that I keep a list of movies "to watch", on which I add from time to time what I don't get to see, a list from which I remove more than I add lately. Unfortunately the current movie was still there. It's a "cop duo". A FBI agent (Sandra Bullock) with an apparently higher IQ than of her colleagues and a superior attitude, is sent from New York to Boston, on a mission to identify a drug lord who nobody has seen. There, she's forced to team up with a local cop (Melissa McCarthy), a bit nutty and a bit alcoholic. Moving on, from perp to perp until getting to the big boss, we have the classical recipe - comedy alternating with action. However...
The classical recipe was quite catchy for '80s-'90s - all the "Lethal Weapon" series, "48 Hrs.", "Rush Hour" (at least the first), even "Showtime", and there are more. From time to time I'm stumbling on one of these on TV and I still believe they aged well. On the other hand pretty much all I've seen being released after 2010 in this genre = "Cop Out", "21 Jump Street", this one "The Heat", is getting worse and worse. I'd be tempted to call myself subjective, in the sense that the focus on comedy (which I'm not that much into) is stronger than the action/thriller part, which is much more present in stuff like "Lethal Weapon" for instance. However, if the the used comic would be ok that won't be an issue, but we just have a high density of little jokes that vary somewhere between lame and immature. The comedy is so unnatural that most of the time it doesn't present any credibility & it fails... at least for me. On top of everything here is so obvious from the first time you see him who's the main culprit that waiting so long for this to be revealed is torture. The only good part I could see was some chemistry between the characters. But that's not enough to save a flunked script...
It took me 5 sessions to watch "Be With You". It's not longer than two hours but that's how hectic my schedule was this week. To be fair, the first attempt didn't last longer than 10 minutes before starting to fall asleep, so I had to re-watch almost all of it. And the ending in the last turn intrigued me a bit, enough to move back to re-watch some other few minutes. So, after all, the movie isn't probably as boring as might seem initially... However, beware the drama...
What we have here is a Japanese adaptation of a novel (if I didn't manage to move away from the Asian cinema neither for this week, I decided to at least move a bit out of the continental part), which starts with something close to "Love Story"'s ending = she dies young, and from there it somehow moves back but forward. In brief, we have a bit of sci-fi/fantasy in the movie, part in which she keeps a promise to return for a while, during the rainy season in Japan's weather. Time that allows us to figure out the couple's background. And... that's pretty much it... + about 15-20 minutes of an epilogue, which surprisingly cuts a bit short the feeling of "I know how this goes on...".
I was convinced to watch this movie by its categorization as fantasy on IMDb (didn't see the trailer), and I can say that I feel a bit cheated from that perspective. It's 100% romance, so that's what you should expect and nothing else, but fortunately it's one that's relatively fine. It probably depends on the mood too. There are some parts that can be truly heartbreaking, but unlike other movies it has a sort of calmness tempering it, and moreover helping to avoid getting into a cheap tear jerking area. I suppose that some of the credit for this goes to the written material. Which apparently was re-booted last year in a Korean remake. I'm fine with the original for now.
I probably already surpassed the maximum of annual postings on movies made in Asia since I'm keeping the blog, but "A World Without Thieves" is the only thing I've watched this week, and my brain doesn't help my memory at this hour to dig in for another option. And after all the current one is not that bad...
A couple of crooks get through a more rough period of their "career". More precisely she seems to feel some remorse for previous actions and would like a karma change. Stuff that he doesn't understand. We have a more precise motivation coming at some point, but I'll let the movie to reveal it. Somehow, the two of them end in the same train with Dumbo. Not the elephant, but a young Chinese peasant moving from some employment back to his home village decided to settle down and start a family. And carrying with him all the money he raised = 60000 yuan (something between 7-8 thousand Euro), cash, in his hand bag. The boy, not very experienced with life, is convinced that if the wolves didn't eat him while working on the fields, neither a two legged wolf could do that. Moreover, he's sufficiently naive to make it out loud in the train station, just before leaving, annoyed by his co-workers suggestion on a safer bank transfer. The situation gets even more complicated as the same train is boarded by a gang of crooks led by uncle Li, a kung fu grandmaster in sleight of hand and peeling eggs (you'll get it when you'll watch the movie). All the movie takes place in the train, where she wants to keep valid the boy's illusion of a pure world, he wants to teach some rough reality lesson, and uncle Li wants the money and a new member in his team.
We have a slight excess of melancholy, which is typical for Chinese movies, some scenes that come from nowhere, but overall the action is coherent, with enough turns and a pretty interesting character development. On top of this the movie is visually very nice. To conclude: even though in the beginning it might look a bit shallow and lacking credibility, slowly it gains enough complexity to transform itself in a catchy solid drama.
I decided to take a free afternoon during my vacation. And I sort of regret the decision, with all the deadlines piling up... + other issues. I wonder if it's normal to not have "vacations" without deadlines?... I guess the last one where this didn't apply, more or less, was in 2014. Anyway, moving back - I did regret also because I lost around 2.5 hours of that afternoon with the latest Tarantino movie - "Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood". Don't get me wrong. Let's not get hasty here. Maybe the movie is not bad, but it can be hard for you to decide on that.
The film follows about half a year of Rick Dalton's life, an actor going through a career downfall at the end of the '60s in Hollywood, partnered by his stunt double, Cliff Booth. Both fictive characters, who are placed in a context with plenty of side stories, enough of them to not really know if there's a main one. But... :) long story short - to get something from this movie you need at least one thing: to have a vague idea about the Manson family and the tragic ending of Sharon Tate in 1969. Wikipedia offers enough info, which is far from being a pleasant reading... but unfortunately without knowing any of this the final credits might stun you with some sort of a "what did I just watch here?..." reaction. Even with having this background, there are many parts that you might probably won't get over the course of the 2 hours plus. Probably a solid culture in respect to the '50s-'70s cinema can help. I got a couple references, but unfortunately I can't brag with a "solid culture", so there are most probably plenty references I missed.
You shouldn't expect something Tarantino specific. Soft spoiler: the movie is much more, let's say... "comforting" compared to the reality, and probably that's what you can appreciate here. Or at least that was desired and it works. As a proof, I guess it's the most non-violent movie of all he directed. Stuff which adds more to the "once upon a time" = "fairy tales are nicer" = "what if?..." but I said it's just a soft spoiler ;) Bottom line: if you want something action packed this is not a good option - it has a very slow pace. But for a couple hours to break out from the daily stress it might work - although it happens often to not know why it takes some course and this might bore you, which can make your brain move back to the daily stress ;)...
I started watching TWD last November after I broke an ankle and I didn't have anything to fill the nights when I couldn't really sleep. It's not the best choice :)... Leaving aside the obvious aspect of bloody horror movie (where the obvious part is deceiving, but we'll come to that), we have enough characters who struggle to survive without an arm, leg, or something else. So, it's not very cheering up if you're in crutches, even if it's temporary, but on the other hand you learn you can survive it ;)
I don't write much about TV shows, 1 - because I'm not watching TV shows (there are exceptions, e.g., the current one) and 2 - you never know how bad would be the next season even if the previous was exceptional (e.g., GoT). But again I don't have another better topic, and also recently I got to the ending of TWD's eighth season - out of the nine released & still upcoming. It's complicated to summarize eight seasons in one post, but I'm not really planning to do that. Still, we need a bit of it...
The setting: The classic zombies story - sometime in a near future a virus wakes the dead to life. After coming back "the walkers" (to use the show's terminology) don't have much in common with their ex-self. The new main parameters: an acute need of meat, a great sense of hearing, being vulnerable just by hurting their head/brains and possessing a lethal bite that spreads the virus. Well, there's an additional detail here, essential for the new ecosystem, on how the number of "walkers" tends to overcome the number of people, but being the revelation you get at the end of the first season let's not spoil it. In all this context we have Rick Grimes, a sherrif's deputy in some little town close to Atlanta, who before the epidemics was badly injured in a shooting and brought to a hospital. Where he wakes up from a come after many days, alone in the abandoned building, and starts searching for his wife and kid in the surroundings. That's the beginning...
After 8 seasons I can firmly say that "The Walking Dead" is not a horror. It's just bloody :) In essence, the series follow the path of a survivors community which forms in season 1, in their trials of establishing a settlement and in their interactions with other communities. Actually what we have here is more of a life drama, even getting some slight soap opera touches, where the zombies are just the context, a sort of continuous natural calamity. Predictable, the main problem for the humans is typically brought by other humans. I guess that a synthetic description of TWD would be an ample stufy of the human behavior in a crisis context. Which might work well in a psychology course. Even a philosophy one, we have plenty of that too.
It's hard to compare TWD with something else. Sometimes it's quite grim and hard to watch ( be warned of S7E1 :) ), but also in some parts is very humane. If I would compare it to GoT, which is I think the only other series that I've watched during latest year, there's also the possibility here to set a betting list on what main character will die in the next episode. The main difference comes though on how the dissappearance is handled = if in GoT this is simplified up to the level of a certain "normality" over which we move quite fast, in TWD, besides having something like a full episode dedicated to it, there's also some following impact in the community that's visible in what episodes come after - including flashbacks and other stuff. Again, it's hard to compare, and it might sound like a negative torment - but it's not, it's just different & more humane.
The production has cinema level. Actually, I would say it surpasses many other zombie movies. It's pointless to discuss much on the craft quality on VFX and makeup. I imagine that is hard to have a noticeable soundtrack on long running series, including enough variation. Here the score is signed by Bear McCreary, who I'd say is at least at the same level with Ramin Djawadi and his work in GoT, even though there are some obvious external influences here and there. But probably the part that deserves the most appreciation in TWD is the cast and the actors' versatility, which gets a strong support from the script that brings up an excellent character construction. And it's not about only the main characters who were present since the first seasons. For instance King Ezekiel and Jadis/Anne are some of the most interesting parts in the cast. You can't say it's at least that's not something original to have a former zookeeper, having a tiger as a pet, talking in a Shakespearean English, and getting a "king" position :).
I believe that TWD is among the series that has the most consistent quality over its length - at least until now - for what I watched, although there seems to be plenty of criticism on how bad are the latest seasons starting from the 6th onward. I disagree. The 2nd season seemed a bit too "soap"-ish, and indeed there are some eye-rolling scenes in season 8, but the rest is ok. As a general description, the first seasons are more tense, and the last have a development that's more... gentle let's say = you don't really feel anymore a constant pressure that somebody's going to die in the following episode ( still... be warned of S7E1 :) ). And besides that, in particular the end of season 7 is among the best series closures that I've ever watched. I don't know about season 9 (it's apparently getting more praise than the previous), but I'd say that the ending of the eighth was perfect for a closure. So, I think the only current issue with TWD is that's getting "overused". Anyway, to conclude, if you're able to move over the violent side, you'll be left with plenty of other stuff - including lots of food for thought ;).
I don't do reviews of romantic comedies because I don't really watch romantic comedies = they're either too depressing or too bad (I have a deja vu that I wrote this before...). I keep a list of "to watch" movie since long ago in which I periodically add stuff that seems worth watching but I don't have time for it at the moment. I don't know how "The Five-Year Engagement" got there (except of Emily Blunt being in it I can't explain it), and I don't know what got into me to pick it now... The movie is not bad, and maybe it wouldn't have been too depressing either if it wouldn't have had some weird sync with some family problems. Which gave me some food for thought, and cut ( again :) ... ) my mood for writing... Anyway, since I don't have time to watch anything else this week, let's quickly get into the subject.
Tom and Violet meet at a new year's party somewhere in San Francisco, they like each other, and within one year he offers her the engagement ring. She says yes and they start the wedding plans. Until Violet receives a confirmation for an academic position that she really wants (trying not to get into debates on academia jobs here...), but unfortunately located somewhere far in Michigan. It's temporary though, and both decide to relocate. However, that's enough to postpone the wedding. And, somehow predictable, also a reason that after moving to start having issues in their relationship. From future chef in a fancy restaurant Tom ends up as a fast food cook, and Violet slowly gets to be a bit too liked by her new boss. Obviously everything turns into a happy end, which without extra spoilers since the title says it already, takes five years to happen.
Even though the story is relatively linear and without many twists & turns, the movie is quite funny, and more important not dumb. Not that I'm much of a consumer of romantic comedies, but comparing with whatever else I've seen... Still, from a personal perspective, as I was saying it didn't come at the best moment, but that's subjective ...
Yet again... I didn't get to see much else in the last weeks besides bad HK movies for getting me to sleep and some TWD episodes. Randomly changing TV channels while spending the night in a hotel in Prague (while missing my bad HK movies), I also stumbled on "The Faculty" and watched its last half. Which makes it probably the best option for a short entry....
I'm not sure if "The Faculty" is sufficiently known to be considered a "classic", but it's probably a reference movie for a niche somewhere between teen movies and light horror/comedy, which gained a bit of momentum in the '90s - early 2000, but sort of faded away after. In brief, a high school in a small city somewhere in Ohio is invaded by an alien creature that multiplies itself by corrupting human hosts. A sort of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", which is actually referred in the movie. In its first half (that I didn't see for more than 10 years I guess) we're introduced with something like six students, each with problems of his/her own, and we're getting to see the beginning of the invasion. In the second half the six students group forms a sort of rescue team after discovering that the creature has a fatal allergy to a home made drug, prepared in his garage and distributed by the high school's bad boy, who happens to also be a genius in organic chemistry.
I have to admit that when re-watching it now, the movie seemed to me more cheesy and exaggerated than I was remembering. On the other hand... well, what could you expect from something directed by Robert Rodriguez ("Spy Kids" & "Machete"). All things apart, it keeps a certain charm. Maybe it's the cast - many known names in early roles, maybe I'm nostalgic...
A couple months ago I wrote a review for "From Beijing with Love". Only after I realized that I've actually seen years ago some other movies by Stephen Chow = "Kung Fu Hustle" (good one) and "God of Cookery" (way too silly). Both in the same range of slapstick comedy, but a bit... let's say different from the same genre made in US. So, actually, as I was comparing in that posting, I (re-)discovered an Asian version of Zucker/Abrahams/Mel Brooks. Unfortunately, after a quick look on IMDb, a bit beyond his glory days. However, it seems there still are some titles that sensei Chow directed, which I didn't see. But since I'm not really into this kind of movies I said let's skip it. Just to return now, again looking a sleeping pills alternative, and giving a chance to "Shaolin Soccer" for that. Well, I didn't sleep...
The story in one phrase: A former soccer glory, left with a limping foot after an incident set up by a former rival, 20 years after that, manages to set up a team of shaolin kung-fu adepts, to get his revenge in the biggest Asian tournament. Otherwise said: we have a parody between soccer vs kung fu movies. Lots of parody on kung fu movies :) (below there's some example of flying monks & Bruce Lee returns).
I'll make this short: I don't think I've seen much better comedies in this niche of absurd slapstick humor. I'd say it tops "From Beijing with Love", and it's making me think on re-watching "Kung Fu Hustle", which I don't remember much more beyond what's written above = good one. Besides that, it's a lesson of what comic effect you can get out just from some filming angles + some VFX that sometimes seem low budget, but that's actually helpful in the context. Anyway, watching this is better than reading... ;) I recommend the original version - the US dubbed one is shorter and misses some important content from what I've read.
Rating: 4 out of 5 (trying to be objective... :) still not really into slapstick comedy)
"Divided We Fall" was the Czech option for the foreign movie Oscar in 2001. Where it didn't get much chance against the other nominees, like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" or "Amores Perros". I've watched it now, main reason being that when I need to travel in some country where I don't know at all the language I try to see a movie made there, maybe there's some chance to catch a couple words. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Most probably the second here. Anyway, it did worth the time.
In brief, we have a family risking their life by sheltering a young jew, during the German occupation in WW2's Czechoslovakia. To detail a bit, David Wiener is the son of a local business owner, who gets deported to a concentration camp with all the family, David managing to escape somehow and to return home. Which home, however, is about to be given for accommodation to a German official. Therefore, finally David gets to hide in the storage room of a former employee, Josef, who decides together with his wife, Maria, to offer shelter. And like that, Josef, to guarantee more protection, finally accepts also an offer to work for the German army together with Horst, a friend and former co-worker, who now is a collaborating with the SS troops stationed in the area. All this story takes place in the middle of some other family issues = the failed tries of Josef and Marie to have a child + the also failed tries of Horst to hook-up with the wife of his best buddy. And somehow these problems get to complicate a lot also the situation of the hidden fugitive.
The action's baseline is not that original in the area of the WW2 movies ("Zookeper's Wife", "The Book Thief", etc.). The approach this film has, is, however, done with more comic effect than other cases, without disregarding the gravity of the context. I would rather say that the cheerful contrast actually amplifies the tragic side, although (spoiler) the end is not as sad as "La Vita e Bella". Actually, the final part somehow cuts off the permanent tension during the movie, and the way this happens :) we have some sort of "twists", maybe a bit hard to believe, but clearly deserving a bonus for imagination.. no spoilers, check the movie ;)
I had the opportunity to see 3 movies at NIFFF this year during a short 2 days "vacation", which actually, if I think now on it, was more like a one day, but... unimportant :) ... More important is to deviate a bit from the main topic, which is the movie, but I feel that I must do it: what is NIFFF? A festival of "fantastic" film, organized yearly in Neuchatel, Switzerland, since 2001, where by chance I lived for around 4 years. My first contact with NIFFF was in 2011, when I didn't get at first how a small city with around 20000 people got to host an international film festival. And not any festival, but as far as I know one of the few events that brings together a unique niche combination of fantasy & sci-fi & horror & weird indie movies + a section dedicated to Asian Cinema. Actually, at a first sight, being there, NIFFF doesn't really look like a very big event at least in respect to the public numbers (comparing with other festivals). However, despite I'm less and less intersecting with NIFFF, mostly when I have the chance to merge it with a work trip in the area, just to give a hint of its amplitude: in 9 days it has around 60-70 movies grouped on various themed sessions, and this doesn't count documentaries, shorts, open air classics like "Alien" or "Pulp Fiction", seminars, workshops and other associated events. Over time NIFFF had guests like George R.R. Martin, Kevin Smith, and even John Carpenter in a concert. Now, given the genre of the typical NIFFF movie, you're never guaranteed you'll see a masterpiece. Probably the indie sci-fi & horrors is the niche with the most junk produced, so it's somehow expected to stumble on that here and there. On the other hand, there are also very good movies. You have something for every taste, and compiling such a diverse schedule in an otherwise relatively narrow niche is one of the festival's organization strengths. NIFFF gave me the opportunity to have a first watch of "Cabin in the Woods", "Dead Snow 2", "iNumber Number", "Jeeg Robot", or now "First Love". Which takes us back to our movie ;)
"Hatsukoi", the original title, is something of a Japanese action-thriller (we don't have only sci-fi & horror at NIFFF), directed by Takashi Miike. Probably known especially for some of the most hard to watch Asian movies, such as "Audition" or "Ichi, the Killer" (didn't see any of these), he is quite a prolific director having more than 100 movies since '91. I didn't see many of these, and some I found pretty bad ("13 Assassins", "Sukiyaki Western Django"). Still, recently, on an intercontinental flight, not having better options I got to see "Blade of the Immortal", which was quite ok. So I decided to give it a shot, although lately I'm not really that fond of excess violence on screen. The semi-ironic intro that the actual director did on the NIFFF stage, when presenting his film as a very light one made people smile. Not that surprising, we have a beheading in the first minute or so. Overall, however, the movie is watchable. There's nothing extreme in it. Let's call it: "Tarantino level" for blood & gore :)
Leo is a young boxer diagnosed with a brain tumor and not much left to live after a knock-down. In parallel with that, Kase, a lower ranked member of a yakuza clan, sets up a plan together with a corrupt cop, for hijacking a narcotics delivery. The guilt is supposed to be brought upon the rival Chinese triad and on Monica, a prostitute on drugs who has periodic visions of her abusive father's ghost. And such a vision messes up the whole plan, the girl literally running at a moment of karmic synchrony in the arms of Leo. Who just got a reading by a fortune teller predicting him excellent health + thinking on other people's wellness for success in life. Not being convinced at all by the first part, and the second not really in line with his boxing job, the guy ends up as a sort of bodyguard for the rest of the movie. The nice part is that the story unfolds on multiple threads, and the part that you might thing to be a classic version of a "damsel in distress & her knight in shining armor" doesn't get the complete focus. We have an excellent dark humor, most of it resulting from Kase's attempts to move over with his plan, where nothing works according to agenda.
It's the type of movie where spoiling too much of the action ruins it, and I think I wrote enough :) What's left to say is that behind all the bullets, swords, blood, and maybe sometimes a bit of an acid humor, with the romance not getting that much screen time (but being there though), there's still some sort of warmth in the movie, which you can feel from the beginning to the end. And that gives it a big plus, at least compared with what I've seen from Miike. Since I was mentioning Tarantino above, maybe it looks a bit like a "True Romance" in Japanese version. Just a bit. That would be all. Unfortunately we don't have yet a trailer per se, and for now the movie is still in limited release moving through festivals, but I guess it will get out also mainstream towards the end of the year. For now, long live NIFFF! ;)
I didn't enjoy any "Toy Story". Well, the first - at the age I had when I saw it - was indeed something new, as a 3D rendered animation, and probably at that time seemed ok, although I think that "Anastasia" left me a more solid impression (out of the '90s releases around the same time). I don't remember anything from "Toy Story 2", and from "Toy Story 3" only that it did hit a new record for the tear jerking coefficient. So I (hardly) decided to see "Toy Story 4", more due to lack of novelty on my blog, and having lower expectations than the depths of the ocean from where the last "Godzilla" came out (which I didn't actually have the "guts to meet"). Given the context, what I can say after is that the choice wasn't that bad. Except the AC in the cinema running on extreme mode for almost 2h... which made me dream on a wool sweater in the middle of the summer.
"Toy Story 4" could be also named "The Search for Forky" - where Forky is the latest toy joining the group, manufactured out of a single use thrown away fork, by Bonnie, the current owner of Woody & co. The problem is that Forky is not at all at peace with his new Frankestein-ian condition of a living toy, and wants back into the garbage bin. Any garbage bin. And since Forky seems essential to help Bonnie to get through the kindergarten purgatory, Woody takes the job of a suicidal forks savior. The problem is, however, made worse by Bonnie's parents who decide for a road trip, where Forky has even more opportunities to escape into some trash can. And so the story goes for a while... But slowly the focus is moved more onto an older friendship of Woody. But let's not spoil the whole narrative line.
I didn't manage to escape completely the need for an eye-roll, but I guess this was in much more reasonable limits than when watching the previous part. Besides that, the length of the movie is decent enough to not drag you into boredom. The efforts to make you laugh are ok, and overall I think it's clearly better on this part than the latest "How to Train Your Dragon" (but also quite far from top funny stuff like "Emperor's New Groove" or "Wallace & Gromit"). In brief, it's fine... especially if your expectations are low enough :)
I didn't have much time for movies this week. Actually, since a while I'm pretty much stuck with TWD and "sleeping pills" made in Hong Kong, where I didn't catch anything to worth an entry. The most recent seen title outside these categories would be "Safe", a leftover in an old "to watch" list, 7 years already from its release date... Time flies by.
The synopsis could directly reference "Mercury Rising", but in a more action packed version I guess. I'm not remembering anything else from "Mercury Rising" besides that Bruce Willis had to protect a gifted boy tracked by some bad guys from NSA for breaking some code, and also that the movie was pretty bad. In "Safe", Jason Statham has to protect a gifted girl tracked by some bad guys from the Russian mafia, the Chinese triads, and from NYPD for being the only one who knows some very long number - also a code in the end, and the movie was so & so. "The hero" here is some former mysterious agent in the US security structures, who became a cop, who became a MMA fighter, who became homeless, who (almost) became suicidal in a metro station, where he has a sudden revelation that all this career chain ends better with a bodyguard position.
Unfortunately the kid character in "Safe" is very under-used in the story, not having almost any effective involvement in the action in respect to the capacity she possesses, even though this is the main reason why everybody fights for her. On the other hand, although you might think that "Safe" is just another 1h30m of mindless action, it's not really like that - indeed, we have a quite a bunch of bullets fired, and Jason Statham displays all his kung-fu skills, but besides that we do have a story where new elements are dropped with a reasonable frequency to keep you from getting bored. Overall, it works well for a light summer movie...
"Wolfenstein" meets... honestly, I don't know what it meets, and I didn't actually play any "Wolfenstein", but "Overlord" seems to be very close in genre. A paratroopers platoon is sent somewhere in Normandy, a bit before D-Day, with a precise mission to bomb a relay installed by Germans on top of a church, in order to make room for the Allied invasion. Barely making it, after surviving the plane getting on fire, the bullets on the ground and the mines, three privates and a corporal make it to the village near the mission target with the help of a local girl. Obviously the place is filled with enemy troops. While the new platoon leader plans the attack, one of the other soldiers sent to scout the area finds that the location hosts much more than a radio relay. It's a secret lab for producing nazi zombies (bingo! we can add "Dead Snow" after meets). Overpowered nazi zombies more precise, which to be even more accurate they aren't necessarily zombies (so, well... not exactly "Dead Snow"). That's pretty much the subject of the movie - a sort of light action horror. It's not actually bad, but I've seen better (e.g., "Dead Snow"), or much better (e.g., "Dead Snow 2" :P).
Sorry, I'm not in the mood for writing. But out of respect for the only "drug" that helped me through the time to "move on", I decided to try marking a movie recommendation for this week too. The only option that comes to mind right now is "Searching", watched about 3 weeks ago. A single father, loses his 16 years old daughter, who is gone missing after an evening with a study group. And so the searching starts, with a dedicated support from the police. But the police doesn't seem to keep up with the parent's detective abilities. The most original part of the movie is that is almost entirely shot via a computer screen. Besides that, we have an ending twist that's a bit forced, but the story is catchy enough to keep you watching. That's all for today.
I should've written this entry when this was still "fresh" for me = around two weeks ago = what I was afraid of - that my memory will start failing me - it's happening... and still "Bad Times at the El Royale" it's not a movie to forget. You can love it, or hate it, but completely forgettable.. not really.
El Royale - a motel with a firm that's more pretentious than the looks of it - it's an almost deserted establishment on the border of the states of California and Nevada. Literally. The California rooms are slightly more expensive at one extra dollar. The Nevada rooms, however, seem more attractive, but for other reasons than the price. Or at least that's what could conclude the only active employee, Miles Miller, the reception boy, when he suddenly finds 4 guests in the lobby. A catholic priest, a soul/jazz singer, a traveling salesman, and a hippie girl. With one exception, all seem to have a hidden agenda that brought them to the same place, and coincidentally at the same time. Obviously, I won't spoil the exception ;) ... Just that the movie begins with a short sequence, when years ago, an overly stressed guy gets a room, and buries a bag under the wooden floor, but he doesn't live long afterwards... Anyway, that's just one trigger for what comes after ;) There are more.
You might hate this, as I was saying. It's a long movie at its 2.5 hours, in which we also see a consistent part of the intro repeated from the perspective of the different characters. Stuff that might bore you. It wasn't my case. You might also love this, if you have enough patience and you're in the right mood. The subject escalates bit by bit. You don't get it all at once, and this was my catchy factor. It might seem similar in style with Tarantino. I liked it more, however, than "The Hateful Eight", which is probably the first example that might cross your mind given the isolated place and the small bunch that seem to look forward for each others demise. Talking about comparisons, I only found out after watching that's written and directed by Drew Goddard, and I can say in retrospect that you could feel some common elements maybe also with "Cabin in the Woods", starting with the fact that we find out pretty quick that all the rooms in the motel are under surveillance. But let's not overrate it - "Cabin in the Woods" it's still a bit above what we have here :) although, given the "surprise character" revealed towards the end, these to movies are getting closer ;)
Posts
