Change Your Image
adamjohns-42575
Reviews
Just Call Me God: A Dictator's Final Speech (2017)
Too Weird.
John Malkovich: Just Call Me God (A Dictator's Final Speech)(2017) -
My first reaction to this work was that I hoped the organ music sounded better in the actual theatre, because it sounded awful on TV.
And then just like that I thought Wow, because I couldn't believe how quickly I decided that I couldn't watch any more of it. I had expected it to be slightly odd, because and I mean no offence to him, but John Malkovich has always played some quirky interesting characters, but this was childish, silly and his dictator character was sooo angry it was almost uncomfortable to watch.
Perhaps if I'd put up with it longer I would have been surprised by some fantastic ending, but I prefer my films, TV programmes and stage plays to keep me entertained all the way through, not just at the end.
Unscored as Unfinished.
The Jesus Rolls (2019)
Boring and idiotic.
The Jesus Rolls (2019) -
I only watched this film because of the cult status of 'The Big Lebowski' (1998), which contained the character of Jesus played by John Turturro and reprised here. I liked that film, but this one probably wouldn't have been something that I would have bothered about otherwise, purely based on the synopsis.
Sadly my initial idea that it wouldn't be something I liked was confirmed within minutes, because it was all just nonsense and the characters were idiots. As such I just couldn't dedicate my time to it when there are so many other great films and shows to watch.
Even though I love Bobby Cannavale, he just wasn't enough in his role of Petey to keep me watching.
Unscored as Unfinished.
The Three Caballeros (1944)
Enjoyable enough.
The Three Caballeros (2) (1944) -
As this cartoon started out I felt that it was definitely better than its predecessor 'Saludos Amigos' (1942). It seemed to have more structure and in general a bit more fun that was still as enjoyable today. It didn't seem to be trying to force the geography lesson as much as the first attempt, but let it flow more organically.
I did still feel that it would have been better broken in to three smaller stories though, because it was a lot to take in one go. These sorts of things are cute for fifteen minutes, but lumped together they can be a bit same old, same old.
I liked the animation, although there were many times where I felt that it could be something for stoners to watch when they're on a trip, because it was a bit bright and psychedelic in some moments.
One of the positives I thought was that it would be good for kids who spoke the other languages depicted, although I was quite lost not knowing the languages at all. I know if I was a kid watching Disney films, I wouldn't want it all to be dubbed or subtitled, so it seemed inclusive to a degree at least.
The live action bits however went on a bit too long for me, especially as it got closer to the end of the film when I started to feel that I was ready for Donald (Clarence Nash), José (José Oliveira) and Panchito's (Joaquin Garay) journey to come to an end.
And actually the last five minutes or so of the Mexican bit was really trippy and a bit rapey too, with Donald lecherously chasing women around.
Generally it was not the worst cartoon I've seen and I thought that kids would enjoy the bright colours and cheerful characters, but I felt that if I was watching it with a child that I would have to tell them what a naughty Duck Donald was for being so pervy.
563.52/1000.
Gandhi (1982)
I got a bit political with this review.
Gandhi (1982) -
I came to this one quite a long time after its initial release and so I had seen many other films that had covered the same sort of topics. As such I am now quite frankly sick and tired of films about inequality, whether that be in the form of racism, sexism, homophobia or discrimination of any sort, not because the subject is boring or necessarily makes a bad film, but purely because it still exists and has ever existed. I am so exhausted of this world full of hate and I felt that I might have enjoyed this film more if I could have looked back on the need for Gandhi's actions as something that is no longer necessary, something that was a thing of the long gone past, but I just know that we're still not really much further on from where we were as a species when he left us in 1948.
A few months ago I started watching a film, that was set much more recently, called 'Jai Bhim' (2021) in which a caste system in India was very much still in place. The violence shown in much more detail than in this film was so intense that I had to stop it half way through to watch the rest when I can endure the hate and evil with more strength, because it physically upsets me and messes with me mentally that these behaviours have ever been acceptable, let alone are still considered acceptable by some today. But essentially it's still the same problem in a different time. In fact, from what I could tell, the storyline of 'Jai Bhim' bore a strong similarity to storyline in this film.
I'd been holding on to 'Gandhi' for a while, but I finally had enough time and felt ready to watch it in its epic length. I might have been put off by the more recent rumours of Gandhi not actually being as holy and nice as he was depicted in this film by Ben Kingsley, no matter how well he did in the role. I certainly didn't see Ben as an actor, I only saw Gandhi so that said a lot about his performance
I really hate discrimination of any kind, so I didn't enjoy the theme of this film right from the beginning. I've never understood how anyone could look at another person and think them unworthy of the same rights, let alone governments doing it.
How is the message still not clear? It really shouldn't be so hard to love one another. I'm a British white man so I have never really faced any racism except that of my Welsh and Scottish friends deliberately supporting any sports teams except the English, but I have felt adversity in the form of homophobia and again it just doesn't make sense to me.
That feeling of fighting that was so obvious and ultimately the drive of this film made it a bit draining. Who really needs to see people having to fight over and over again for their freedoms and even sometimes just fighting? The world has enough of that in real life, just watch the news.
I could however see why this effort by Richard Attenborough was so successful and so well revered at its time of release and why it has remained a classic that appears on no less than 3 of the top films lists that I am crossing off, but because I was watching it for the first time over 40 years later and because it wasn't a story that I enjoyed as such, I can't say that it would be a film that I would return to in any great hurry.
It was only a bit dated by today's standards so I couldn't really say that there was anything at fault with it except for the very subject of it and that itself was possibly for only me personally. I just don't like to see such nastiness in the world, although I could only imagine how horrifically realistic it would be if his story was made today. Would it perhaps include Ghandi's own alleged racism though and the servants he was alleged to have had too?
General Dyer's (Edward Fox) part in it made me incredibly nauseous and even more angry. I am sad to say that until I read the IMDB Trivia I hadn't known whether it was an event that had really happened or not. To find out it was filled me with bile.
I did feel that it must have been hard for the British actors to play the pompous asses that were so ignorant to what they were doing, but I also felt a great shame that citizens of my country or the world had ever acted like that. It was all depicted as so matter of fact, like "We have conquered you so you will do what we say even in your own country!". Grrr!
And the way that the people's minds changed so easily with every slight just proved that we are all just inherently evil and that there is no hope for the human race. The atrocities depicted in Calcutta were no different to those that are happening in the world now.
As a biopic of such an historically important man I felt that it covered all that it needed to of his life, even without any information about his time as a child and younger man. And of course it included the momentous events that he brought to be as well making it a double edged story with a good balance of the man and the achievements felt globally because of his actions/inaction.
Based on this depiction I might consider him to be a logical man probably more than spiritual, because it didn't harp on about his religious beliefs too much, but instead showed that he was trying to change the politics of the world while being as peaceful about it as he could, which to me just made sense.
If it wasn't such a long film, watching it would make a good drinking game. Every time someone really famous appears you take a shot. There were lots of them so I'd be sloshed within the first hour and dead before the end of the second, but it might make it more bearable?
It does score higher for being a well made film and despite my dislike for the subject matter, but I have had to take that in to account. Perhaps with a bit more light to balance the dark I might have given it an extra point.
769.29/1000.
Close (2022)
Absolutely heartbreaking.
Close (2022) -
It's definitely better that we live in a world where people stop to think about what they should actually say, although it is a miracle that we as a race ever survived this far without a mindset along those lines until recently. But what this film did in abundance and probably primarily above all else was to show the spiral and the awful things that can come from carelessly spoken words, what they can do to a friendship and how easily the innocence of youth can be lost, just like that.
It started with the two leading boys playing happily and without care about what others thought of them or how they interacted, because no seed of doubt had been planted. Perhaps an experienced adult might look at their relationship and see something more than friendship, but that wasn't essentially explored and I felt that the whole emotion of the story was better for that not knowing either way whether they loved each other like that or not. It wasn't the point that the film was trying to make.
With the start of secondary school things progressed and the tension in their friendship developed. Poor Remi played very well by Gustav De Waele made me so sad, because I really felt what he was going through.
As things moved on further and Leo took the spotlight more I could clearly feel with him too. Eden Dambrine in that role, who had apparently been spotted on a train by the Director, should go far as an actor, because I couldn't help but get sucked in to what was going on his life, by his actions, inactions and what he did or didn't say. Clearly he has a natural talent for acting.
When the TV synopsis said that the film would contain scenes that some might find upsetting I thought that there might be bullying, rape or bloody violence. I didn't think that it would be something so soul crushing.
It kept the pain going so that just when I thought I'd stopped crying and things were going to get better I found that I was reaching for the tissues to blow my nose again, but in a way that was pure and necessary, perhaps even cleansing to a certain degree.
It was a real close up of grief and depression under a microscope. It washed me out a bit, but I didn't feel as if it had been a bad experience at all. Some might say that it was cathartic.
I did get the impression that the translated subtitles weren't always giving me an accurate reading of what was being said and as such I thought that I might have been missing even more substance.
My only other criticism was that there was a bit too much of the Ice Hockey moments, but that's just nitpicking to give some balance to a review that really is only complimentary
It was so naturally filmed and simply acted, slow, but thoughtful and very engaging. A few days later and I'm still feeling the sadness of it, but I would definitely recommend it and although I wouldn't want to watch it every week like 'Star Wars' (1977) or 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show' (1975) it had its own appeal that perhaps only needs to be seen every ten years or so.
909.15/1000.
The Boston Strangler (1968)
Strangled!
The Boston Strangler (1968) -
This film didn't feel as threatening as a piece about a serial killer should.
I didn't feel the danger at all, although the women who opened their doors to the murderer really got on my nerves, as if the reports about them hadn't been all over the news and surely discussed amongst the masses. People across the globe probably took precautions against the danger, reminded that these people are out there everywhere so that depiction made it hard to feel sorry for them and with the exception of Dianne (Sally Kellerman) they didn't really explore the women in any detail to really feel anything for them at all, except as supporting artists that moved the story on. It didn't seem to be focussed enough on any person or group of people to see whose perspective it was supposed to be from. It was very bitty and as such a bit inconclusive for everyone, with no one to specifically get behind as the champion of the piece.
It was also annoying to know in advance who the "Strangler" was played by, because there was no excitement then regarding those interviewed in the investigations during the build up. I knew which actor I was looking out for and what the murderers actual name was, so I would advise those coming to it fresh not to read anything more about this film or the strangler before you start.
It did seem to show that the detectives on the case were doing all they could to find the killer and that was probably the clearest part of the film, but even then, because of the script and terrible sound quality it was difficult to follow.
Even from the beginning the split screen idea was really quite distracting and combined with George Kennedy, famous for his role in the 'Naked Gun' (1988/91&94) films, here playing one of the Detectives tracking the strangler it made things seem a bit comedic too.
As the film progressed the messing with the multiple pictures actually became very irritating and artsy fartsy just for the sake of it. I couldn't tell why people weren't reacting to someone else suddenly being in the same room, because it wasn't actually the case, but just the way the two camera views blended together, especially difficult to distinguish due to the late 1960's dark filming style and filters.
I felt that the whole film was actually a bit unclear and even the dialogue was jumbled at times. Overall it was just not that well made. Some of the acting was bad, some seemed indifferent, but nobody stood out as delivering something special.
I was also annoyed that the Psychic, Hurkos' (George Voskovec) error was never explained, which was very frustrating. It was another thing that just wasn't wrapped up.
I didn't and still don't know the full extent of the stranglers mental health issues, but I did feel that they were perhaps a tad too sympathetic towards them in this telling of the story. I know I would have been pissed with this depiction if one of my family had been killed by them only a few years before the film was made.
In modern terms I supposed that you could compare him to 'Moon Knight' (2022) if Oscar Isaac's characters had a thing for strangling people.
My only other note was that after a while it became really obvious that they'd doctored the nose of the killer to make them look different and to distinguish them from their previous mostly comedic characters.
I might be tempted to watch one of the Made For TV interpretations of the story to see if they did it more justice and offered a clearer explanation of the events, but I'm certainly not in any hurry to do so. However I doubt that I will watch this one again.
475.69/1000.
The Far Country (1954)
Swing and a miss.
The Far Country (1954) -
This definitely wasn't my favourite James Stewart film. His performance as Jeff was fine, but the character really wasn't very likeable which made it hard to take an interest in him. I'm not saying that Jim should only have ever played nice guys, but this one wasn't even a loveable rogue type, he was just indifferent and selfish and even his redemption arc was based purely on revenge and not because he wanted to be a better person.
His cattle herding and gold panning partner Ben was played by Walter Brennan who was done, but really didn't deliver anything new either.
And Corinne Calvet as Renee was really quite annoying too, more like a panto character than a screen actor.
As for Jeff's alleged romance with Ruth Roman in the role of Ronda I just couldn't see it. There was no depth, no passion and no apparent interest on Jeff's part, because he was so self centred that she seemed to be just another thing that existed in the world to be used by him like a shovel or a coffee pot.
The whole film was just a bit of a jumble, one minute cow herding, the next murder, then gold hunting. Nothing really made sense, because the script was a bit lame and it didn't have a clear path. When something finally did happen, it was over quickly and that was the end of the film.
I usually love James, but this story of the Wild West, the gold rush and corrupt law enforcers just didn't have the excitement that it needed and the direction seemed a bit wishy washy.
466.75/1000.
Eric & Ernie (2011)
I definitely didn't think that it was "RUBBISH!"
Eric And Ernie (2011) -
I remembered enjoying this greatly when I first saw it, for its strong castings and wonderful humour, but I had begun to doubt myself after rewatching 'Rather You Than Me' (2008), the similar Frankie Howerd BBC biopic, which didn't resound as well as I had recalled.
My fears were needless though because I thoroughly loved this exploration of Morecambe & Wise's early years.
The script and direction cleverly sculpted the path to define where and how some of the humour might have been formed and used suggestions to represent what I knew that the two jokers became.
Vic Reeves (Jim Moir) and Victoria Wood worked really well as Eric's parents and again I could see how they shaped Eric's onstage persona. I didn't think that the smoking suited her though, looking as if she was an actor with a prop and that she didn't really like it. It sounds nitpicky, but it really jarred for me. I was surprised to see very little about Ernie's parents though.
As for Daniel Rigby as Eric himself, he absolutely stole the show. He had clearly studied the man to get all of his inflections and mannerisms. It was hard to remember that he wasn't the actual comedian in question.
Bryan Dick in the role of Ernie was good too, but he didn't quite pack the same punch. The younger incarnation played by Josh Benson could have been something from an old Wise family home movie though, because he nailed Little Ern.
Overall I felt that the casting was spot on, they all looked and acted like they belonged in that era. I never once thought that I wasn't watching something from that time. The sets, costumes etc were all appropriate too.
Although it was essentially a very well done drama I also loved the humour throughout. I could absolutely see those kids growing into those teens in to those men that I've laughed at for years and how the jokes and affectations matured into their acts.
From their earliest days of pageantry to their first appearance on BBC, It was a very worthwhile piece about a pair of comic geniuses that was highly entertaining. A masterpiece in how to do a biopic properly and one that I would have liked to have seen a sequel to.
919.81/1000.
The Amityville Horror (1979)
Boo!
The Amityville Horror (1) (1979) -
As someone who's not a horror fan I made it through this one without ever feeling particularly scared, because 45 years after its original release it just didn't have the fright factor that it might have done at the time and it didn't help that I couldn't really get that invested in the story either.
While it didn't give me anywhere near enough enjoyment to warrant me sitting through the 100 sequels that followed, I might be tempted to sit through the 2005 remake, mostly for sexy Ryan Reynolds, but perhaps also to see if they did a better job with the effects and the tension of the drama that was missing in this one.
The horror itself was all too subtle really, even for me. And it was still all just a bit tame at the end when the ghostly, demonic occupants of the house really went for it to get the new residents out. Also the weird pig thing was just a very odd choice and had no place in the story as far as I could tell, not being set on a pig farm, focussed on a possessed stuffed toy or something similar.
I felt that it took them an inordinate amount of time to empty their boxes and fully move in too. Whether that was a metaphor for how they subconsciously didn't actually want to live there who knows, but it just seemed like the set dressers and continuity people had forgotten how much time was supposed to have passed.
I also couldn't work out why the Police Sergeant Gionfriddo (Val Avery) was keeping an eye on their house or why he then followed the priest? Although Father Richard Bolen (Don Stroud) did come across as if he should be on a register somewhere?
That whole investigative side of the story was very vague and without enough other context or a resolution felt irrelevant to the rest of the tale.
Other than that I thought that there were some interesting costume and hair choices for Margot Kidder as Kathy Lutz. Were they going for a catholic school girl vibe? Those pigtails? That skirt? Very peculiar.
And I can't be the only one that thinks James Brolin, who played George Lutz, looked like Christian Bale or vice versa? Someone should do a DNA test.
For me a horror film needs to have a good storyline and then be backed up with good performances direction and special effects to keep my interest. This one should have been a good story and for the late 1970's the acting abilities, of the adults at least, weren't that bad but somehow nothing really gelled together.
Maybe it was based too much on the book which was allegedly a fabrication by the Lutz family who were living in the house when these things supposedly took place, but it definitely needed some refinement for the screen and a better screenplay/script in general. Perhaps the weird pig would have made more sense and I'll find out why if I ever read the novel? I also think it needed more interaction with the kids to really drive the fear.
Not one for my rewatch list but maybe the remake will get a try?
516.17/1000.
Limelight (1952)
Disappointing.
Limelight (1952) -
I still titter to myself when I think of the boxing match in 'City Lights' (1931) and I was surprised in general to find out just how much I enjoyed the silent films made and performed by Charlie Chaplin, but I don't think that his spoken word efforts have been quite as enjoyable.
Maybe his style of slightly exaggerated actions and his affectations just didn't translate across to the speaky, but in this particular one I didn't really rate his performance at all. His character of Calvero was wooden at times and his delivery was a bit paint by numbers, without any real heart to it. Going through the motions and lacking E-motion.
The production was all very twee and basic and certainly seemed to have been made with a budget much smaller than his previous efforts.
The fake Thames backgrounds for instance were so badly done and not even necessary for the story to work.
And Chuck looked really creepy as the clown in the Columbine ballet scenes.
I did think that the story of a fading clown helping a damaged ballerina back in to the world of entertainment, whilst also trying to get back on his own feet had potential, but the delivery was just not there. The comedy elements that the Tramp like clown performed were just not funny, as if Charles had tried so hard to make this story serious that he'd forgotten that the comedic moments should still be hilarious to balance that out.
The flea circus dream bit was quite embarrassing to watch, especially when I considered the genius comedy that had come from him before. In fact the next flashback/dream was daft too and even his "Final Act" with another Hollywood icon Buster Keaton was just not worthy of their genius.
I also felt that the timing was odd for them to be putting on shows and touring Europe in 1914, while a war, which they even acknowledged, was raging, unless I missed the point where it said "4 Years Later" or something?
I could absolutely see this working if it was remade today with a few tweaks, because the story was sweet and worthwhile, but I do feel that a new version would have to acknowledge Calvero's own real feelings towards Terry The Ballerina (Claire Bloom) to show how hard it was to set her free, which was one of the huge things that let it down on Calvero's part for me.
Maybe Chuck should have stuck to making silent films, even after they'd gone out of fashion or at least the Tramp's shenanigans could have all been treated that way to keep them relevant, while the supporting cast maybe did the talking. Its too late now I suppose, but I do know that I will probably not look to see this one again, while I will definitely search out 'City Lights', 'The Kid' (1921) and 'The Circus' (1928).
447.45/1000.
Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
Meet The Parents!
Crazy Rich Asians (2018) -
This was a very basic and typical romance with a trope akin to so many of the genre and with nothing specifically very different about it. The only thing that was perhaps unusual was that it was set in Singapore and with Asian families. I'm sure that there must be hundreds of films like it made by the people of Asia and shown there all the time, but this felt like the first time mainstream international cinema had done it (By that I mean the UK and the U. S.), but that still didn't make it special enough to stand out in any way. There really was nothing new here story wise.
In fact with its disapproving parents and family dynasty's it could have been set in the time of 'Mulan' (1998/2020) and worked exactly the same.
I suppose that I was a little bit surprised to see these more old fashioned values still being explored in a 2018 film. I know that Asian culture is full of tradition and that it is very important to them, but there also seems to be a great intelligence and forward thinking in that part of the world too. Maybe it was just an example of one family in order to try to find some drama, but I personally prefer a love story where the couple aren't constantly fighting or upset over what their parents think and can just get on with their own relationship trials.
With that said, I didn't not enjoy this one (I hate to use a double negative, but that really is the way I want to say it). It just didn't really need to be made. 'Bridget Jones Diary' (2001) and 'Pretty Woman' (1990) basically deliver the same thing and with a bit more heart and soul.
All of the actors did a good job except perhaps one of the Cousins that I don't even remember the name of, but the leading men all had a charm and sex appeal about them as did the ladies if you like that sort of thing. Gemma Chan as Cousin Astrid was particularly good, but I was disappointed that Michelle Yeoh, whom I had loved as the more eclectic Santa in 'Last Christmas' (2019), was straight back to her standard angry and serially serious role type in this one, even if she does do it well. No one else made any specific impression of note and of notes in general I wrote very few, because there was little to comment on either way.
It was a standard "Taking the girlfriend home to meet the parents" schtick complete with backstabbing friends and family, whilst various other things are going on in the family unit too. I can't say that I won't ever watch it again, but I don't think that I will search it out any time soon.
629.65/1000.
Deadpool (2016)
I'm very tempted to read the comics now.
Deadpool (2016) -
I really loved this film, it had so much in it to enjoy and really seemed to bring Comic Books and Superhero's to the action genre in a much more typical way. It wasn't just the swearing, nudity, violence and massive explosions, alongside the fantastic science fiction, because it had a certain edge to it as well, like Axel F (Eddie Murphy) in 'Beverly Hills Cop' (1984) or John McClane (Bruce Willis) in 'Die Hard' (1988) and the fourth wall breaking, which was generally hilarious really added another layer as well.
It was a great comedy anyway, his crazy certainly matched mine and it was combined with a superb soundtrack that tied it so well together and helped to give an idea of how things were going to go down or rather that anything could happen, because Deadpool was just so unhinged that he might defecate in to someone's neck whilst 'The Care Bears' theme tune played, although I was thankful that he didn't.
I loved Ryan Reynolds in the leading role, he delivered those throwaways to the camera in such a proficient way and really drove the character, but I also really enjoyed the supporting cast. Karan Soni as Dopinder and Leslie Uggams in the role of Blind Al really gave Mr. Pool great people to bounce his banter off of. Also, and I don't say this often because I'm in to fellas, but Morena Baccarin was beautiful and I loved her character of Vanessa too.
However I felt that Colossus (Stefan Kapicic) was wrong for me. He was too much of a Russian caricature and they played too much on the nice guy that he has always been in the comics. Yes he was a gentle giant, but still actually human and not just a mountain of metal man. His depiction in 'X-Men' (2000) might have worked better here too for its more believable grounding in the real world to balance Deadpool's extremeness.
And he may be incredibly sexy to look at, but for me Ed Skrein really wasn't the best actor for the role of Francis/Ajax. His mockney seemed too forced, although he was clearly evil.
As origin stories go it did a great job of explaining how Wade Wilson came to be Deadpool, the way that his abilities manifested and his reasons behind his choice to be a vigilante. Considering DP only has a quarter of a page in the Marvel Encyclopaedia I'm pretty sure that this film will immortalise him for many years to come.
872.89/1000.
Dumbo (2019)
I never thought that I would give it an 8!
Dumbo (Live Action) (2019) -
I watched the latest "Live Action" Disney attempt to remake 'Pinocchio' (2022) and hated it, so before I decided to watch this one I had a look through the Synopsis and Cast on IMDB. I was incredibly surprised to find that Timothy Q. Mouse did not feature in the cast list, but many other names had been added that I definitely didn't recall from the original. As such I went in to it with some trepidation as to how this film was going to turn out, but I have to say that I found it to be a highly successful reinvention. A better interpretation of the original idea than the 1941 cartoon in my opinion and a million times superior to 'Pinocchio'.
I really liked the additional storylines that were utilised to flesh out the characters that had otherwise, for the most part, been pretty silent in the original attempt.
Colin Farrell's character of Holt Farrier who had returned to the circus where his kids had been left alone since their Mother's death after his time away as a soldier in World War One could have been atypical in that returning military man role, but it was a softer, kinder and more thoughtful father type that he played which was nice and fitting.
He found that the Circus Master Max Medici (Danny DeVito) had sold the horses that he used to ride and that Medici had now put Farrier in charge of a new pregnant elephant that he had recently bought. What followed was basically the same story of a small elephant born with big ears who learned how to use them to fly, slightly adapted to provide the real actors with a script due to the absence of the animals voices. This time the story was told from the human perspective.
But halfway through I found that the main bulk of the story was already done.
Whether the tale that followed was in the original novel I cannot at this time say, but the whole treatment of the story didn't take away from what I did know and only added some decent substance to further what was a pretty simplistic adventure otherwise and continued the tale to make it a bit more worth the ticket price.
Okay, so I might have liked it if Timothy Mouse had a larger part and that he and the other animals had retained their voices, because talking animals have always been a part of Disney for me, but I could appreciate the choice not to go in that direction with this film.
It was very typically Tim Burton in its stylisation and delivery, but I have to say that it favoured his better works, with obvious comparisons to be made to 'Big Fish' (2003).
It could also easily be compared to 'The Greatest Showman (2017) and there were moments when I thought that the Mermaid (Sharon Rooney) or Rongo The Strongman (Deobia Oparei) might burst in to a version of 'The Greatest Show' song at any moment.
In some ways the same camaraderie that featured in both 'Big Fish' and 'Showman' were featured in 'Moulin Rouge!' (2001) too and that was all very clear in the way that the Circus was a family unit in this film, with the same sort of settings, time frames and stylised production.
The lighting was a bit too dark at times though, which has been a consistent problem that I have found with films lately.
I would say that it is a bugbear of mine that these films are all claiming to be "Live Action" yet they are clearly filmed on a set and/or in front of a green screen with extreme CGI elements painted in around the real actors, because it seems to defeat the object of what "Live Action" is.
It's like putting live people in to a cartoon rather than polishing a real film with CGI to enhance it. In fairness I liked what they did mostly.
The fairground in particular was too modern and fantastic as far as I could tell. More akin to the steam punk ideas of today than those of the actual 1920's.
However, I liked how the original films songs were worked in to this one without making it a musical, although again I didn't think that it would have hurt for that element to remain a part of the proceedings. I certainly preferred this depiction of the 'Pink Elephants On Parade' though, because that scene and song had felt so wrong and out of place in the 1941 film and it did seem a bit wrong to show a young "Child" getting drunk.
The main soundtrack otherwise was obviously Danny Elfman for a Tim Burton film. I felt that I recognised refrains from 'Edward Scissorhands' (1990) and 'The Nightmare Before Christmas' (1993) in some moments. That didn't hurt anything though, because Mr Elfman has always delivered appropriate music and this was no exception.
I really did like this film as a whole and I was happy to have been proved wrong by my pre-judgments. Until recently I would have said that the first Disney take on Dumbo's story was terrible and I only came to the conclusion that it wasn't so bad after all when I watched it for maybe the third time in my life and could see some of its sweet simplicity, but I can cheerfully say that I would recommend this new version and repeatedly watch it again in the future.
784.85/1000.
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
Fun, but a tad slow.
Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid (1969) -
I'm sure that many people will disagree with my opinion on this one. Maybe it will hold a special place in their heart, because they remember seeing it in the cinema or watching it with their parents, but I'm afraid that I found it hard to get excited by watching it for the first time in 2024. In fact it seemed pretty tame even by the standards of 1969.
I quite liked the stylised way that the film was made, but it did make the story drag a bit, with diversions for bike rides and conversation instead of gun fights, shenanigans and whoring, as with a typical outlaw flick. It was really quite slow to start.
Paul Newman always played his characters so well and with such charm and Butch Cassidy was no exception. But unusually for me I also liked Robert Redford's enigmaticism as The Sundance Kid too. It was a bit like watching Paul as 'Cool Hand Luke' (1967) or Rob from 'The Sting' (1973) so none of their performance was unexpected.
I could give or take Katherine Ross in her role of Etta, she neither seemed to add or detract from the story, although the bicycle ride was sweet and something different from the usual western films that I've seen.
If I'd been writing this screenplay though I probably would have made it a more obvious love triangle situation to add some extra drama, because bank robberies in westerns are a dime a dozen, where the romances, as it was here, tend to be something very simplistic and not exactly tender or loving. It might have added an extra layer to the plot and the romantic style of the filming, but I'm not sure how true it would have been to the real story of these heroes of the Wild West.
Although I have seen many films about, Billy The Kid, Pat Garrett and Wyatt Earp I didn't actually know anything about these two outlaws for me to say if the depiction was accurate, but I also don't feel as if I know much more now, because this interpretation could easily blend in with others of the Western ilk that I have seen due to its lack of nothing new.
I did find it odd that it almost seemed as if Butch and Sundance didn't even really know each other that well, which made their friendship seem a bit fake or maybe too new for them to have such faith in each other. Like asking Brian from accounts to be your wingman on your first night out with a new company, only to find out that he has no luck with the ladies. The relationship hadn't established enough to build their knowledge of each other, which belied the stalwart dedication between them. In that respect I might have appreciated more of their origin story, rather than jumping straight in to their later exploits.
Weirdly the musical track, with its inclusion of B. J. Thomas' 'Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head', worked, especially alongside the sepia photo montages. However it did feel as if the script should have been a lot more comical to go with it, more akin to 'Cat Ballou' (1965) perhaps. The actors in the leading roles were well known for making people laugh after all.
It just wasn't as action packed as I felt it should have been either. A large part of the film seemed to just be the titular characters running away a lot.
I also noted that even I could probably have tracked them across the country with all of the noise and dust they were kicking up. It was a surprise that they hadn't been caught previously.
In general though the film was alright, but it didn't wow me. Perhaps I'd expected too much from it. The characters are legends of course, as are the actors, so I felt that this particular interpretation had a reputation to live up to and it didn't.
600.89/1000.
Ted & Noel (2023)
It could have been important.
Ted & Noel (2023) -
Ted was obviously not dumb, because of what and how he was fighting for his cause, but his quiet and soft demeanour didn't necessarily show his intelligence or determination. That may have been partly camera shyness, but that meant that I found it hard to focus on what I was seeing. It became a tad dull, although I did want to know how it was going to go. Which generally wasn't anywhere in the end.
I was shocked to find that seniors in homes were treated so badly, especially in such recent history, so I did feel for Ted's cause following the mistreatment of his ex Noel in his care home, where he had suffered with Alzheimers. To hear of many elderly patients going back in the closet when they reach that point in their lives was awful to consider too.
However, quite honestly by the end of the film I just thought that it was bland and didn't really empower the cause it was representing. It made me go "Ahh bless that poor man" instead of "What can I do to stop this!?"
512.31/1000.
Hamlet (2009)
"There Are Four Lights!!"
Hamlet (David Tennant/Patrick Stewart) (2009) -
I was really torn by this production, because there were elements that I did enjoy, but I also found other things more tough to get along with.
It was likely that I'd had too high an expectation due to my love for Patrick Stewart and David Tennant as actors, but I was rather disappointed by Patrick in his role of Hamlet's usurping Uncle. I openly admit that I'm not the greatest expert on Shakespeare, but to me his delivery felt flat and emotionless. Too much like the personage of Captain Picard*, who kept himself removed from his crew to manage them with authority more easily, and not enough like a wicked and murderous conniving King. Perhaps the delivery was just too subtle, but I didn't think that his heart was in it. He was still good, but not the Shakespearean brilliance I had perhaps expected.
I did however like his portrayal of Ham Senior's Ghost, despite his slightly too solid interactions with his son, which detracted the spooky ethereal element of their meeting.
As for David Tennant as the titular character, he was better in this than I thought he was as the titular 'Richard II' (2013), but there was still a lot of The Doctor** in his delivery. In fairness, he must have put a lot of himself in to the time travelling role, that it would be very hard for it not to stand out in his other performances, there are after all many hours of him as The Doctor recorded, whereas most film roles only normally last 2-3 hours.
His portrayed madness was at times quite genius though and it definitely wasn't a bad performance.
As I mentioned I was torn by the production and some of that was due to the modern style of it. The CCTV imagery wreaked of a Crimewatch reconstruction and even reminded me of some of the early years of William Hartnell's 'Doctor Who' (1963-89) with its black and white top angle. It just jarred with the rest of it.
It also felt like an early 1990's drama made very cheaply or a film made specifically for schools. Certainly at the beginning I considered it to be akin to an episode of 'Dynasty' (1981-9) made with a BBC budget instead of a supersized American one.
As it progressed, I grew used to it all and it didn't hurt it too much, even though there were times when it was a bit too obvious that they were just using the same set from different angles, there was a specific bedroom mirror that appeared in the main hall for instance.
The generally exclusive use of the set then made the one scene filmed outside seem even more juxtaposed and in a bad way. I do tend to prefer these stage to screen filmings better when they are in fact filmed on a stage as it would be for the audience at a theatre. These other attempts can come across a bit too contrived otherwise and hit differently.
When various characters addressed the camera as Shakespearean actors have so often spoken to the audience it also seemed very wrong, as if it couldn't make up its mind to be TV or theatre.
I did like Ham's handheld camera moments though, somehow they felt fitting as a way around the talking to camera idea.
Oliver Ford Davies was enjoyable in his role of Polonius and I thought that Penny Downie was good as Queen Gertrude as well. I also really liked John Woodvine, who was superb as the Player King and could have stolen the whole show if his part hadn't been so small (Ooh Matron).
However, I didn't like the choice to include the clowns as part of that play within the play, it was too silly compared to the rest of it and although the Gravedigger (Mark Hadfield) was good, his performance was a tad too pantomimic too, at least it felt a bit out of sync with the rest.
There were moments where I felt that some of the cast were reading from a teleprompter or perhaps a script taped up behind the camera? They just didn't seem to focus on those that they were talking to and instead kept looking above the camera or to the side of it.
The sound wasn't always too good either. Whispering that wasn't projected for all to hear and a stairwell that echoed and distorted the speeches for instance.
Excluding 'The Simpsons' (1989-) this was the third version of the famous play that I have watched and I have to say that I must really like the story and the beautiful prose, because it does always keep me gripped, partly because of the subtitles which I'd be lost without, but also that there is just such a variety of emotions on display to be enjoyed. I felt especially that the scene in Gertrude's "Closet" (Bedroom) was intense and very well done.
In general the story of young Hamlet, tasked by the ghost of his Father with killing the man who stole his throne, his Uncle, was filled with ups and downs and moments that were full of drama and passion in more than just the way of revenge, but as stated I'm just not sure that Shakespeare as a play, rather than a more structured realistic film, translated certainly in this instance to being recorded anywhere but a stage. The only one that has succeeded in this that I've seen so far has been 'Romeo & Juliet' (2021) with Josh O'Connor and Jessie Buckley.
There is something about the restrictions of the stage that were almost written in to the Bard's stories and of course most likely in the stage directions, so it's harder to fall under the spell of it all in this half and half way.
My only other note was that I did have to wonder if they had filmed each scene in one take, because I know that I wouldn't have liked to have reset over and over to achieve it, to get the same power and passion behind most of the scenes or even to have to reset the props etc at times.
Overall, it was still a very good version of the story, but I just felt that there were a lot of things that could have been more well thought out. I think that I preferred the 2016 interpretation with Paapa Essiedu in the lead role. That one felt more accessible too and had more humour which tended to round it out a bit, because it was frequent and provided balance for the serious moments.
It's a very long play to sit through, even with the ability to pause it for a pee break, but there is a reason why it has always been so well revered. I grow to appreciate our bard Will more and more and this was certainly a respectable working of his greatest tale.
710.95/1000.
*Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-94)
**Doctor Who (2005-22)
Children of Men (2006)
Definitely worth watching.
The Children Of Men (2006) -
Perhaps when this story was first written and 2027 was further away than just three years, things hadn't seemed so bleak in comparison to the world depicted here, but since that time the world in which we do live has become so similar to that shown, although maybe not quite as extreme just yet, that it was tad scary to see how easily we could fall in to this horrific "Dystopian" future right now. It was all a bit too true!
With that said, I did feel that the general concept and delivery of the tale was well done and didn't terrify me quite as much as some of the other films I've seen of the same ilk.
The actors all gave good performances and Michael Caine in particular always puts a smile on my face, because although I wouldn't necessarily say that he has a lot of variety, what he does play has always been done with ease and skill.
I probably should have watched this with time to see something cheerful afterwards before bedtime, because it did hit a low note with its contents that showed what a horrible world we currently live in.
Clive Owen's character of Theo got roped in by his ex to assist the only known pregnant woman to a safe place. Years of no births had left the planet in a strange state that saw animosity towards immigrants elevated and factions fighting factions all over, while Theo had almost given up on it all, so it was nice to see his change of heart as well as the tension of the story as he and Kee (Clare-Hope Ashitey) faced challenges on their journey to an alleged safety.
I have to note that the editing towards the very end, during the scene in Bexhill, was very good. So much so that I could notice it for its brilliance, but not so much that it distracted me.
It was a great story, told well, if a little bit frightening in our current climate. It was probably meant as a warning, but some people must surely be using it as a way of life and a template for their supremacist futures, which is more than a tad worrying. As Freddie Mercury once sang "If there's a God in the sky looking down, what can he think of what we've done to the world that he created?".
I would have scored it higher if there weren't so many others like it out there to see and if it had added something specifically amazing to the trope, but I did enjoy it.
769.08/1000.
Fisherman's Friends: One and All (2022)
Fishy, but not Friendly.
Fisherman's Friends: One And All (2) (2022) -
As with the first instalment (2019) I did feel that the production had represented the Cornish as incredibly backwards. They really heightened the yokel local thing too much making the Fisherman's Friends look a bit stupid and not just charming characters as I'm sure they probably are in real life.
I didn't like the territorial behaviour bordering on racism though. I think that it's fine to take pride in the area where you live and might have been born in, but at times their idea that everything that wasn't Cornish was rubbish came on a bit too strong. Things like that could damage tourism in the area, because people won't feel welcome.
Jim's (James Purefoy) angry attitude got boring after a while too. Certainly at the beginning I didn't like his character and I couldn't feel for him or get behind his reasoning either. His attitude towards Morgan (Richard Harrington) was just blind prejudice. It wasn't exactly easy to cheer any of them on for that matter with them all being such terribly silly stereotypical caricatures of Cornishmen.
And Gareth (Joshua McGuire) stood out a mile as someone who did not belong in the music industry in a completely different, but still stereotypical way. The city folk all came across as ignorant to anything outside the metropolis walls too.
Maybe the original script about a trip to Australia had more going for it and the revisions that were made due to Covid striking were the reason that I just didn't see the point of this one. It really didn't have enough going for it to make it worth producing. Especially in a century where sequels have really got to stand up by themselves. It might have worked as an episode of 'Doc Martin' (2004-22) or something similar, but not as something that people paid good money to see at the cinema.
At times I could see that it was a bit cobbled together from pieces of another storyline. It followed the group as they continued with their lives on tour, having found fame in the last film and then their struggle to get their second album produced, while Jim struggled with alcoholism and grieved for the loss of his Father, but although it finished on quite a nice high, it didn't really go anywhere in a specifically interesting way.
I do tend to think that a lot of British films - 'Calendar Girls' (2003) and 'Kinky Boots' (2005) all follow a similar underdog line and this one was no different. I found it even more akin to 'The Full Monty' (1997) in story, as well as in production style and general concept than I had with the 2019 effort. Small town lads auditioning for someone to join their group, while their lives are falling apart, so they can ultimately perform something on stage.
It was a bit silly and some of the supporting artists were not brilliant.
I also thought that it was inconsistent as to what time of year it was too, one minute sat by a fire and another in the sunshine in short sleeves, then back to an overcast sky, which I suppose is typical British weather, but not traditionally how a film is made.
And I know I was there on the day it was recorded (Look for me in the back row at the Minack Theatre), but despite my knowledge that the weather was bloody miserable that day it was clear that they were heavily lighting the "Friends" to the point that it looked Green Screened, which actually seemed to happen quite a lot throughout. And at times I wasn't sure that they were filming the same harbour? The long shots didn't look like the one where Gareth was sunbathing, but maybe it was just the angle.
I also couldn't shake the thought that the incidental background music had reminded me of the song 'Grandma' by St Winifred's choir. It was distracting to try and piece together how the lyrics went with the tune, but that was probably just me.
My final criticism was that I didn't feel that there had been enough interaction and friendship between Jim and Leah (Jade Anouka) for her to say "Proper Job" at the end. She hadn't earned it as Daniel Mays had in the last film. And that was kind of the crux of my overall issue with the film. There was just too much disparity with the country versus city storylines, as if the city part had mostly been forgotten about, because the rewrites had not been able to bring it all together and there was no savvy agent really pushing for the band and bridging the gap between both worlds.
It wasn't a horrible film though, there was very little to offend the general viewer and it was definitely a better effort than 'Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again!' (2018), but although it featured my debut acting performance (Please don't blacklist me, I need this work) and I'd love to say it was great I just couldn't see it as anything more than maybe that episode of 'Doc Martin' A TV special, but not a special film.
443.46/1000.
Pinocchio (2022)
When I Wish I hadn't bothered.
Disney's Pinocchio (Live Action) (2022) -
When most of the cast still need to be animated/CGI'd can we really call it a Live Action film? Especially as the majority of the set still looked artificially created too, although the scenery work was well done either way.
Some of the characters were not so well done though, especially Honest John the Fox (Keegan-Michael Key) and Gideon the Cat and it was clear that their voices were coming from elsewhere, like bad ventriloquism.
Joseph Gordon Levitt was a good choice as the voice of Jiminy Cricket, but he would have been better in the role if he'd had a better script, because at times it was very basic.
And actually the film, for an effort made in 2022, was really quite childish in general. And yes I realised that it was aimed at children, but I mean that it felt like the childish style of very basic kids productions that are farcical and slapstick in a very old fashioned way.
Even Tom Hanks interpretation of Geppetto was too exaggerated and daft. In fact there was very little subtlety to any of the live actors performances. I didn't like the Blue Fairy (Cynthia Erivo) either. And Luke Evans as the Coachman and the kids on the coach were like something from a pantomime too. I was a bit embarrassed for him.
Even within the first ten minutes I felt that the film had been padded out just for the sake of it, but without the need for it in those moments. Because whilst I did feel that the original 1940 offering needed better pacing and a few more pauses to let the story land, it didn't need to drag the opening out any longer.
I did like the small montage that came before Pinocchio was sent to school, because I had felt that the morning of his awakening was too quick for Geppetto to pack him off when I saw it in the original.
I actually didn't mind the changes that were made to the story line as the additions seemed to make the whole thing more structured, the new characters and moments may even have been straight from Collodi's original story, but the general production otherwise was just terrible in my opinion.
I was tempted, very tempted, to turn it off by the time it got to the Circus, because it was just such a lame delivery.
And it was incredibly dark at times. So much so that I couldn't even see what was going on. I'm all for realism, but not to the detriment of the visual. I couldn't even tell it was Luke Evans to start with because it was sooo bad. Make it a full moon if it needs more light, we the laymen won't know that it wouldn't be that bright!
The modernisation also took away any charm that the other one had, as if they hadn't cared about making errors regarding the time it was set or by putting in funny bits that just didn't fit with the rest of the film.
Like why did they turn Pinocchio in to an outboard boat motor?
And why did they CGI the root beer for crying out loud? And did they really need to make Monstro an actual Monster instead of just a whale?
The story followed the same basic path, that I'd seen in the original, Pinocchio's creation and his straying from the right path because his conscience was never around when he needed him. He found trouble at the circus and on Pleasure Island while his Dad was desperately searching for him, which in itself wasn't the worst story, but this version really cheapened it and made it unlikeable.
410.05/1000.
Submarine (2010)
"Briefcase w@n/(er!"
Submarine (2010) -
I liked the stylised way that this film was made, but it did also feel a bit crude like something akin to the old TV series of 'The Secret Diary Of Adrian Mole, Aged 13 3/4' (1985), but with a more specific type of humour and less of Ade's accessibility.
On another night I might have turned this one off quite early on because it was quite an odd comedy, certainly not for everyone. I could definitely see the influence of Richard Ayoade, who I have always tended to find better when scripted and directed by someone else.
It also had hints of 'Sex Education' (2019-23) as well, but again it felt much less for the masses and more for those looking for a filmic masterpiece with great lighting or clever direction as benchmarks of a good production rather than how it made them feel or whether the plot and characters were enjoyable.
I did feel that narrator and the leading character Oliver Tate was the perfect role for Craig Roberts, because it was who I have always found him to be. With that said I do tend to find that these films are better when the leading character is more likeable, which Oliver was not. Asa Butterfield in 'X+Y' (2014) had a vulnerability and sweetness about him as the socially awkward maths prodigy Nathan and that made him personable, which softened what others mind find uncomfortable about him, but while Oliver clearly had some serious mental health issues, he was also just a Dick.
I felt that was why the similar film 'Funny Pages' (2022) didn't work for me either. Daniel Zolghadri as Robert was another unappealing character.
Despite it not being my type of film I could still appreciate Paddy Considine (Graham), Noah Taylor (Lloyd) and Sally Hawkins (Jill) in their roles as the adults that were supposed to balance out the childish behaviour of Oliver, Jordana (Yasmin Paige) and Chips (Darren Evans). I did find their performances slightly more exaggerated, as if for stage and still quite idiotic in their actions, but they have never been actors that I would say have ever delivered anything wrong in any role.
As the leading character struggled with the affair he thought his Mother was having and tried to maintain a relationship with a girl that he was clearly out of his depth with from the get go, the story didn't really have a lot of structure. It did show the vulnerability of growing up in the 1980's with no clue how to deal with raging teenage hormones and the potential of a broken home, but also showed that Oliver was so selfish that he just couldn't be there for the one he allegedly loved, as can be the way with youth.
I could have lived without seeing this film, but I don't necessarily regret watching it. It's unlikely that I will return to it, although I might discuss it with other friends who like film as a point of interest, but not pleasure as such.
568.39/1000.
The Marvels (2023)
Marvel hits a new low!
The Marvels (2023) -
I found it really hard to concentrate on this film because it was just so bad and the story so boring. It really felt like a repeat of something that I'd seen before and a childish attempt to achieve it, more akin to 'Percy Jackson' (2010 & 2013) and 'Harry Potter 1 & 2' (2001 & 2002) than the rest of the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe.
I actually liked the TV series of 'Ms Marvel' (2022) which worked fine as a quirky serial about an unconventional young superhero, living as part of an Indian family and the restrictions that she felt that implied, but the treatment of that didn't translate to the big screen and this might have been better at least without her family. Their silliness didn't need to come along for the ride. It may also sound bad, but it got very girly, because of the attempt to fit Ms. Marvel (Iman Vellani) in and more than a bit goofy too. At one point it was like they were gossiping at a sleepover.
That wasn't the only thing that was childish though. The singing planet was like something from a very lame original 'Star Trek' (1966-9) or 'Deep Space Nine' (1993-9) episode and I mean no disrespect to Trek, because that series could get away with those things in their way of exploring how other species might differ and to show acceptance/tolerance to those that are different, also because it was only 45 minutes at a time, but in this film it just felt as if it was done for comedic effect in an attempt to match Taika Waititi's comedic style with 'Thor: Ragnarok' (2017). And the Cat thing was too much as well.
I must confess that I do moan when they make these films overly complicated with twists and turns that have me second guessing everything and everyone, like a 'Secret Invasion' (2023) but this was so simplistic that it was just not worth making and really didn't seem to expand the Marvel storyline at all.
Most people had agreed that Captain Marvel hadn't been a success in her first film, so it was a surprise that this one was made. I can't say if that was Brie Larsons fault, the characters, the script or whatever, but it was as if they had almost admitted defeat with this release just to fulfill a contract or something.
The story went that Captain Marvel's actions following the last film and her disposal of the Supreme Intelligence on Hala, the Kree homeworld, had rendered the planet with unbreathable air, etc and so Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton) was hell bent on revenge, targeting the Captain's favourite planets to restore the balance, instead of any of them just sitting down for five seconds to work out what could be done otherwise, which was basically the cop out ending.
It all felt a lot like 'Guardians Of The Galaxy' (2014) and the previous 'Captain Marvel' (2019). Nothing new at all for the franchise as a whole and especially the smaller space based episodes and I felt if it didn't add anything new, why bother?
I might have preferred a film centred on Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris) alone actually, giving her the chance to take over in the role of the Captain and perhaps that's where this will lead, but even then the actor didn't seem quite right in the role, despite being much more interesting than Brie's C. M.
It was such an obviously rushed film. The pacing was ridiculous, as if they had expected people to get bored and turn it off if it had been a longer running time.
The teleportation concept at the very beginning was really annoying too and lasted too long before its resolution.
Captain Marvel was not as serious as she had been in the last one, so it was almost as if they had rebooted her and I am becoming more and more convinced that it is time for Samuel L. Jackson to step away from the role of Nick Fury. There's nothing surprising about him anymore and the role is tired.
As for other faults, I wondered how one Kree woman was stronger than three Marvels all together? They should have defeated her easily. And how could Ms. Marvel use her power without her bangle?
I hoped that the Khan family had Superhero damage as part of their home insurance policy too.
Flerken vomit!
443.45/1000.
Deadpool & Wolverine (2024)
A Screen Wipe for the Marvel Cinematic and TV Universe.
Deadpool & Wolverine (3) (2024) -
As we left the cinema from watching this film the first thing that my 74 year old Mother said was "I need to watch that again!" taking the words right out of my mouth and it wasn't even because she's a deaf old cow who probably missed most of the throwaway jokes, but because it was just so damned enjoyable. I really hope that it will be just as good when I do go back to watch it with the foreknowledge of it all.
I very nearly didn't watch the Marvel films and TV series that had been released to build up to this one, having last been to the cinema to see 'Dr Strange In The Multiverse Of Madness' (2022) and not bothering to catch up in between, because I'd been so disappointed with that one.
But I was glad that I did make the effort to catch up, because I certainly would have been a tiny bit lost without watching 'Loki' season 2 before this one. It wasn't absolutely essential in order to enjoy Mr Pool's adventures, because it just had such great content and so much of it, but a reminder of the work and the environment of the TVA (Time Variance Authority) was definitely a helpful jog of the memory.
Because of the Deadpool's (Ryan Reynolds) hilarious fourth wall breaking it was clear that this story was taking the Mick out of the sudden influx of Multiverse storylines, whilst also utilising that same trope and doing it very well. Not only was it just a good story set in multiple universes, but it was also a great way of fixing many of the situations that had arisen as a result of so many Marvel incarnations and "Variants" made by different studios.
Joined by Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) in an attempt to fix his own timeline, Deadpool caused havoc at the TVA and found himself banished to the void. A waste dump filled with cameos from many of my favourite Marvel films and they just kept getting better. There were twists galore as what I thought was going to be one thing turned in to something else entirely and sometimes there were just some really simple ways to save the day, especially when Peter (Rob Delaney) turned up towards the end.
There were numerous action sequences, mostly fights, that could potentially have become boring if they hadn't been so darn good and so appropriate. They happened because the two volatile leads would quite clearly fight constantly and not just amongst themselves, so it wasn't just for the sake of creating massive battle scenes although that was certainly the case at some points.
It culminated in a superbly epic way that only the goodness of Wolverine combined with Deadpool's nutty ways could pull off. Everything tied up in a neat bow, but still with huge potential to keep the franchise going and maybe in a new direction?
As the film credits rolled there was a stream of nostalgia which I could only imagine was a way of saying thanks to what had gone before, but seemed to be clearly saying that those bits were over and new things were coming that would replace them now that Disney has taken over.
It was brilliantly clever in the way that it mocked the multiverse idea, but delivered it far better than the others.
I certainly haven't laughed like that for a good long while either. It also had a cracking soundtrack as was to be expected from this franchise.
There were superb performances from all. I can't really mention outstanding moments without giving away too much about the surprise appearances, but it was great how they came from a more serious timeline and still managed to take the pee out of themselves as Deadpool had always done.
And look out for the Easter Eggs dotted throughout. They will surely fill IMDB's trivia section with all of the fun placements and nods to so much more.
I deliberately didn't watch any trailers to get the best out of it and I'm so glad I did that, because it was such a joy to behold everything brand new. I think that I would have been devastated if this one had let me down, but I can honestly say that it beat all expectations.
The only reason that it didn't score higher was because it wasn't a totally original idea and there had to be other films and things beforehand to make this work as it did.
899.69/1000.
Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (2022)
Wakanda Forever????
Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (2) (2022) -
Despite the sad loss of Chadwick Boseman as the leading role, this film had a lot of potential to introduce a new incarnation of the character and really change things up. Unfortunately they didn't seem to be backing their new lead to deliver the story without the support of numerous other characters. While there obviously had to be some element of origin story for Shuri (Letitia Wright) as that new lead, taking her Brother T'Challa's place, it really didn't need to be such a long and drawn out process though. One that included an additional origin story that seemed to steal the main focus of the film by introducing Namor, an Atlantean from beneath the sea, who was probably only rushed to be introduced in order to compete with DC's 'Aquaman' (2018) films.
Tenoch Huerta didn't exactly wow me as the underwater ruler with wings on his heels either. Whether it was the choice of actor, his general appearance, his screen presence or the direction he received I couldn't say, but to my mind there didn't seem to be enough there to embody such an important character in the Marvel Universe.
I did feel that the whole film had become an ensemble piece so that there were too many characters getting screen time and not enough focus on the titular character and the main adversary anyway. The Royal Guard Okoye (Danai Gurira) had a side story as did T'Challa's girlfriend Nakia (Lupita Nyong'o) and even Martin Freeman as Everett Ross, the token American government good guy, seemed to have a story that was building towards something else, which was distracting from the main story.
Perhaps in the future the information from this film will lend itself as the perfect bridging between the first one (2018) and the upcoming next instalment, but at this time it just felt cobbled together and rushed out to cinemas without landing on a decent enough script and with no faith in Letitia to bring something new to the role that the fans would still love, just to keep fans from forgetting the 'Black Panther' franchise.
It was also a bit slow to start which I didn't blame wholly on the need for reinvention after Chadwick's death, but I did feel that it took too long for the Black Panther to actually arrive on screen. It was like the first films storyline all over again.
I didn't need all of that re-establishment, because most of Wakanda and its culture had been clearly defined already.
And it didn't need the other new character of super inventor Riri Williams (Dominique Thorne) or her creations to start the story (She's probably going to be the new 'Iron Man' or something?). The war could have started much sooner without her and the story would have flowed better. There was a point halfway through the film, where Namor arrived in Wakanda to cause trouble, that would have been a much better way to start things off following a short period to explain why Shuri hadn't followed up with the Black Panther project until that moment, where she would have realised that it was all down to her. The film could then have continued with her finding her feet in the role and showing how her technical know how would lead to a new type of Panther that didn't solely rely on the mystic flower that had given the generations before her their abilities.
They should really just phone me to tell them what to do next time.
Production wise it was filmed with a dark filter to the point that I had to turn off my lights to see any movement on screen. I wish the film companies would realise that it doesn't add to the drama, but only frustrates the audience instead. I could barely even make out Namor's appearance when he first arrived on screen. Just pretend it's a full moon or something???
The special effects didn't seem quite as clean or quite as special as they had before either. I felt as if the budget had been reduced, because 'Marvel' had just become a film factory instead of something with integrity towards the work. The backdrop's of Wakanda felt obviously drawn and not very realistic, perhaps high definition is making things look too much like the sets that they are too?
The underwater movement of the Atlanteans didn't look as slick as it should have for a species that had lived there for centuries either and once again it was too dark.
The action that followed was okay, but like the story was not exactly anything very new, which I realise is difficult in a world saturated with media, but I'd rather they didn't make it than they produced stuff for the sake of it and get my hopes up.
In general it wasn't so bad that I couldn't bear to watch it, but it fell flat of what it could have been and spent far too much time on the reinvention and not enough on action and furthering the cinematic universe or even just the main character.
639.89/1000.
Werewolf by Night (2022)
Sexy Beast by day!
Werewolf By Night (2022) -
This was a simple, short, but effective film. In some ways the story was akin to 'The Hunger Games' (2012) and in other ways it was a bit more similar to 'Supernatural' (2005-20) or 'Buffy The Vampire Slayer' (1997-2003).
It began as a group of Monster Hunters were gathered to establish who would claim the mysterious Bloodstone for themselves, but it was clear that some of those gathered had agendas all of their own and which went against the house rules. It was also perfectly obvious that a lot of them were just cannon fodder for a cool death on camera.
What followed was an easy ride for the viewer as the various hunters tried to prove their dominance, although there were only really two contenders to win. I enjoyed that simplicity though, sometimes films can trip over themselves by complicating a storyline with too many twists and turns that ultimately just jar the path and leave me scratching my head or second guessing everything.
I wasn't sure that I could have taken it quite so seriously in the standard colour format, although it was still very good in its own right, but I particularly liked the black and white treatment that added to the more fantastic element of the film. It had notes of the early Hammer Horrors and other such "B" movies, which was clearly intentional, but it also had those more modern themes to it and was definitely a 'Marvel' effort.
The blood effect trickling down the screen was good too. And I liked how the Bloodstone was the only item that was in colour.
I would also say that there were no issues with the production elements and the cast were all good too. I specifically enjoyed Gael Garcia Bernal as Jack Russell, but mostly because he was so damnably cute.
The biggest issue I had, that has always been a problem for me is that I find Werewolves in these films so unconvincing as monsters. The make up effects and CGI are always so twee, making them look like either ropey old dogs or people with exaggerated features that are more comical than scary. With the darkness of the film it was also hard to fully see how it looked.
Overall though I really enjoyed this one, perhaps because it was so succinct or maybe because it was all this particular story needed to be.
I would like to see further developments in the lives of Ted (Carey Jones/Jeffrey Ford) Jack and Elsa (Laura Donnelly) depicted on screen. Perhaps they will be a part of the next phase in the Marvel Cinematic Universe?
748.35/1000.
Swan Song (2021)
Interesting to see an older leading gay character for a change.
Swan Song (2021) -
This story ambled slowly and didn't really have much going for it, but it was done in a way that still made it interesting and attractive. It also felt kind of Ad-libbed, but in a positive way that made it more natural and realistic.
As Pat (Udo Kier) struggled with his decision to attend to the hair and make up of one of his old clients and he made his journey across Sandusky, Ohio to the funeral home, his journey was not boring in the slightest, but it also wasn't a revolutionary tale that broke any boundaries or records. It was just a nice little piece that was fun and curiously innocent.
I suppose that it could have been considered a message about the different way of living for a gay person in the 21st century as opposed to how we existed in the mid to late 20th.
The loss of gay specific clubs and meeting places that the older generation had frequented, before Grindr and other online apps came along to take the mystery and the risk out of walking up to a guy in a bar, also somewhat meant the loss of a gay community and culture too. Now we are integrated and I still feel on the outside and I felt that Pat was in a similar position too.
In some other ways the film could have been considered as a vehicle to show the lasting legacy of the AIDS crisis. All those years later and the events of that time, the friends Pat had buried then, were still affecting his decisions and even the life he was living was different because of the decisions of others at that time, which I found out as the story moved along. The answers to the questions that had been raised earlier on all get cleared up and things slowly made sense. It was probably this drip feed of information that kept me interested, but I also wanted to see how things would come to pass when Pat finally reached the funeral home to do the job. Essentially it was a one man show, but the supporting cast did provide opportunities for him to explain the situation more clearly and show more of the character that had been hidden within a plain grey tracksuit initially.
It wasn't actually that easy to gauge a timeframe for this work, especially based on how cheap everything seemed to be, but based on the memorial information that came at the end of the film it would have to be set around 2012.
The film from start to finish did have a great soundtrack too with pieces from all over the last century.
Although IMDB and the Film4 channels synopsis claimed it as such I really didn't see the comedy that it was alleged to be. It was sad and thoughtful with moments of humour, but none of it was forced as I believe a traditional comedy to be. It was all just part of a normal interaction, normal life.
A sweet and sensitive film that didn't exactly wow me, but would certainly be worthy of revisiting again in a few years.
719.21/1000.