Movies: To The Bone Review

August 15, 2017

In the absence of there being anything at the cinema worth going to, I’ve been spending time revisiting movies I’ve seen before and trying out newer efforts available on the likes of NetFlix and Amazon Prime.

Mhairi and I tend to go turn about on picking movies, and last night on her turn we selected the NetFlix exclusive, To The Bone, which is about a 20 year old girl who has signed herself in to a group therapy clinic in a bid to overcome her potentially life threatening anorexia.

Now I’ve never had an eating disorder and subscribe to the belief system of ‘Exercise as much as you can to allow you to eat as much as you want’, so I found myself struggling to empathise with any of the characters. Indeed, as harsh as it sounds, I just felt myself getting frustrated and saying “Oh just swallow the food for fuck’s sake”.

But is that down to me lacking sensitivity on the subject because I can’t get into the mindset of the characters, or is it down the team behind this not doing enough to make me understand?

A quick internet search will provide you with plenty of reviews that criticise the way the subject matter is dealt with though, so maybe it’s not just me.

But putting that aside, the main question is whether or not it was an entertaining movie.

And it wasn’t really.

I mean…it wasn’t terrible, and I did manage to sit through the whole thing without checking my watch or demanding it was turned off, but it was one of these bland movies where nothing exciting or even noteworthy happens.

The characters seemed one dimensional, you could – and I did – accurately guess the entire flow of the plot after 15 minutes and the acting was unremarkable. But then it did have Keanu Reeves in it.

I just didn’t find myself entertained, sympathetic to characters or invested in any of their issues or plights.

Really, the only thing that could have saved this was for the last line of the movie to be for a character to say “Come on, let’s all go for a bhuna”.

But alas it was not to be.

I’d chalk this up as one to avoid.


Movies: Dunkirk Review (or “An Artistic Demonstration”)

July 24, 2017

While it’s true to say that a good movie doesn’t necessarily have to have a strong story, I think it’s also true to say that if it doesn’t have a strong story, it can’t be considered as the best movie of the year.

And that’s where I am with Dunkirk.

To me, Dunkirk is an exercise in visuals and sound. It’s an artistic demonstration.

The idea behind it seems to be to immerse the viewer in the sights, sounds and struggles of the British evacuation of Normany during the Second World War, and it certainly does that.

It’s very loud, visually stunning – with some quite superb direction and camera shots – and remarkably tense thanks to its unrelenting incidental music.

I just saw it at a regular cinema but I imagine it’s best seen in an iMax.

But I don’t think it’ll be my favourite movie of the year – and in fact I can already tell you that it’s not – because it lacked enough of a story to hook me in.

The gimmick – presenting three converging timelines – didn’t seem to add up entirely, and even though there was a good reason for it, the lack of dialogue early on became slightly wearing.

So like I say, as an artistic demonstration, this was absolutely top notch, but it failed to capture me from a creative point of view.

Much like Gravity, I think this is one for the cinema that might not translate as well beyond it.

And because of that it can’t be movie of the year.


Movies: Spider-Man: Homecoming Review

July 21, 2017

I’m a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to comic book characters, so I’ll hold my hands up and say that when it became obvious in the pre-credits sequence of Spider-Man: Homecoming that the Vulture would just be Michael Keaton in a some alien tech wing suit, I was disappointed.

I wanted an old bald bloke in a green leotard with wings.

But hey, you can’t have everything, and as it turned out, Keaton made it work, although that shouldn’t come as too much of a shock considering he’s been good in everything he’s appeared in since his career revival. For me, he was one of the best parts about the movie, along with Jacob Batalon as Peter Parker’s always-amusing best friend, Ned.

And it was a good movie.

Rebooting the Spiderman series yet again in such a short space of time was a risk, and thankfully they took a different approach, casting and writing him as a younger man living in a world not populated by the same school-friends as we’ve seen in previous films. It was fresh.

It also felt a little less CGI/action-scene heavy compared to most other Marvel efforts, which is no bad thing.

In fact, unlike most superhero movies, this felt like a story from start to finish, including a terrific twist towards the end that I didn’t see coming.

If I was to criticise it for anything, it would be that it presumes knowledge of the existing Marvel Cinematic Universe movies, so f you’re coming in with a fresh pair of eyes, it might be a little confusing.

That though wasn’t a major issue for me, and so on the whole I enjoyed it.


Movies – Unlocked Review (or “Clunky But Enjoyable”)

May 10, 2017

Apparently the bar for being considered a Hollywood A-Lister has been lowered just a little bit based on the description of the lead actress in some reviews of Unlocked.

I’d honestly never heard of Noomi Rapace before, and a quick look on IMDB shows she’s appeared in very few English language productions. How is she an A-Lister?

The answer is that she’s not, and in truth she wasn’t even good enough to star in a throwaway movie like this that nobody will remember in 2018.

She might well be a terrific actress when speaking in her native tongue – she was the star of the Swedish versions of The Millenium Series (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo etc) after all – but she struggled to adapt to acting in English. Without wanting to sound all xenophobic and Brexit about it, it is the case that people who act a part in a language that isn’t their own can struggle to deliver lines with the correct inflections and so it drags their performance down.

So she was pretty clunky.

Mind you, so were most of the English speaking actors in the cast, including Orlando Bloom – trying his best to act like Grant Mitchell off Eastenders – and Michael Douglas. Really, the only one who stood out in a positive way was John Malkovic.

To be honest, the plot was pretty clunky too. It was very much a by-the-numbers anti-terrorism/24/Spooks style story with ridiculous swerves and some daft motivations.

And yet, I actually enjoyed it.

It was stupid, but it was fun. it didn’t do a whole lot to stand out as amazing but it was relatively short, it didn’t lull and it kept me entertained.

What I would say though is that it’s the sort of movie I’d only recommend going to see if you have an Unlimited Card for the cinema.

It’s what I’ve described before as the sort of movie you’d watch on a plane, but would be annoyed if you paid full price.

 


Movies – Beauty and the Beast Review (or “A Visual Feast, Not An Audible One”)

April 7, 2017

Seeing as pretty much everyone who goes to see Beauty and the Beast has probably already seen the cartoon version, the onus of any review should not be on whether or not it’s a good story, but rather if it manages to successfully bring the cartoon to life.

It does and it doesn’t.

From the very beginning you can see that unlike the Jungle Book – which played it straighter with almost none of the songs from the original present – this was planned as a shot for shot remake. Yes, it adds a bit here, removes a bit there and expands upon/offers a new interpretation on some elements from the cartoon, but it’s essentially the same thing.

And it looks spectacular, it really does. This movie is without question a feast for the eyes.

Unfortunately it’s not a feast for the ears.

Because here’s the problem; it’s a musical and many of the actors hired to play the parts can’t sing to the standard you’d expect.

Take Emma Watson for example; there’s no question that she looks the part for the role and although she’s not the best actress by any stretch of the imagination, she manages to get by.

But she really can’t sing.

She talks through most of her lyrics and every word seems to be auto-tuned to the max. It’s quite difficult to listen to, especially considering how good the songs are from the original.

You can almost excuse it though because the role of Belle really had to be filled with an actress of some repute.

What I don’t get is why they had to cast big-name actors who can’t sing for characters who are CGI teapots and candles for 99% of the movie. One of the big draws from the original was Angela Lansbury’s Beauty & The Beast song which gets absolutely murdered by Emma Thompson. The same applies to Ewan McGregor’s destruction of Be Our Guest.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt many people go to see a movie based upon which actors are doing voice parts so why not just hire people who are maybe not so well-known but could have done a better job?

It’s not all bad though on that front. I thought the casting of The Beast (Dan Stevens) and especially Gaston (Luke Evans) was bang on. The latter managed to both look like the cartoon version and was actually able to sing.

And one of those songs brought up a significant aspect of the movie; Disney’s first openly LBGTQ character.

This has caused a lot of silly and unnecessary controversy from backward thinking countries/regions who are appalled at the thought of two men dancing but are strangely ok with a young girl falling in love with a giant horned animal.

I get the significance, but – and I say this as a straight, white male and thus not the demographic that this will be as important to – I can’t help but feel that making that first character the bumbling, stupid sidekick of the villain was a poor choice. And the writing and performance – especially in the Gaston song – seemed rather worryingly to be based on the relationship between Craig and Anthony in Big Brother 6. Anyone remember that?

Anyway, on the whole it was enjoyable but if you were to ask me if I’d rather watch this one or the original, I’d definitely pick the cartoon. The songs are just too central to what makes the movie what it is, and that’s where the live version is let down.

So it brings it visually to life, just not audibly.

 


Movies – Kong: Skull Island Review (or “Unsurprisingly Clichéd”

March 22, 2017

It’s fair to say that Kong: Skull Island is an unremarkable movie.

Though the premise is decent and there’s nothing particularly bad about its execution, I left with the feeling that almost no effort went into the development of the plot.

Or to put it another way, while someone probably got paid handsomely for writing the movie, just about anyone off the street could have done a similar job in their sleep.

As I watched it, I just felt like I’d seen it all before and could have ticked off everything that happened on a pre-made cliché sheet.

For example, we have..

  • The scientific expedition where one person knows more than they’ve let on.
  • That person then gets killed.
  • The handsome Indiana Jones style male lead.
  • The plucky girl who tags along for the ride and has no real purpose to the plot beyond a hint at some kind of romantic tie-up with the male lead.
  • And she’s got big tits, obviously.
  • The military guy who starts to go a bit mad and turns into the villain of the piece
  • Samuel L. Jackson (almost) gets to say “Motherfucker”
  • The bloke who decides that for no good reason he’s going to sacrifice his life because he apparently can’t be bothered living anymore.
  • Someone who says “Oh and (insert name here)…thanks” which nobody EVER SAYS in real life.
  • The bit where after initially fearing the monster they soften to him for no reason other than for it to save the day in the end.
  • The monster represented as not anatomically correct (i.e. he’s got no junk).
  • All the good guys surviving.

There are more, but you get the idea.

I’d just like to see a bit of innovation, but I’m not sure that exists anymore.

Still, despite these problems, I suppose I should take the view that it was exactly what I expected it to be and so can’t be too disappointed.

I mean…that’s one way to think about it…

 


Movies – Patriot’s Day Review

March 5, 2017

It seems as though movies based on true stories are in vogue at the moment as Patriot’s Day is the third one I’ve seen in as many weeks.

This one wasn’t a learning experience like The Founder, nor was it particularly schmaltzy like Hidden Figures; it merely presented a recent news story for the viewer to experience.patriots_day_ver3

I’m sure most people – unless they simply don’t follow the news – knew about the Boston Marathon bombings of a few years ago, and so the narrative of the film will hardly have come as a surprise, but that didn’t take away from its drama and impact.

Personally, I watch stuff like this and think “Jeez, that actually happened” and get pretty caught up in it all. I see the impact of the bombings – the deaths of a small number of people and the permanent injuries suffered by others – and take it more seriously than any fictional drama.

Above that though, it was enjoyable. The cast was strong, it never lulled and it had a few moments that I would describe as ‘Punchtheairtastic’; the scene where the Chinese guy escapes and tells the police to “Get those motherfuckers” immediately springs to mine.

The one thing that stood out for me though was that Mark Wahlberg’s character was so obviously fictional. One single cop managed to be patrolling the finish line when the bomb went off and was also at the scene of both terrorist’s arrest? It was too coincidental to be true. But I think it was required. Without his character to provide a link between every major event, Patriot’s Day would probably have seemed disjointed. As much as it’s based on a true story, if it was entirely accurate to the truth then it might not have made for such a good movie.

Why they spent so much time on this fake character’s knee injury though, I could not tell you…