Change Your Image
Snowgoat
Reviews
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)
Still astoundingly good. A flawless maritime adventure
Been a favourite of mine for 20+ years now, though sadly I never saw it in the cinema. Rewatched it tonight with family after a decade or so gap, and it still stands up magnificently. I honestly can't see how this film could do what it set out to do any better. Peter Weir on form is a fabulous director - and Crowe, Bettany and the supporting cast are brilliant here. It feels utterly authentic, the pacing is fantastic - thrilling and touching in equal measure - and the whole thing manages to be great fun to boot. The subject matter may not be for everyone, but within its own boundaries I honestly feel like this is essentially a flawless film. The only disappointment is that they never made a sequel. We live yet in hope!
Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)
Underrated Scott. Dramatically flat but visually spectacular biblical epic.
While I agree with a lot of the criticisms of this film (leaving aside any secular/religious/historical issues some may have), I've seen it a couple of times separated by a few years and enjoyed it both times.
Although clearly not 'vintage' Ridley Scott, and not to be uttered in the same breath as Blade Runner, Alien etc, I still find this one of his better later films - especially aesthetically. The drama certainly suffers from a certain flat/over-casual quality - especially for the first hour - but once Moses returns to Memphis the film becomes a visual spectacular featuring some truly splendid imagery well worthy of your time.
I rather enjoyed the way the script left open a secular/rational possibility for the events (though I know many will be offended); giving it wider appeal and at least a semblance of historical possibility.
One note: the music was a big disappointment - I kept on longing for Zimmer's score to Prince of Egypt to break out - but instead we just get a kind of HZ-lite-rip-off that permeates most of Scott's later films (can't he afford to hire Zimmer himself any more?).
Anyway- if you like Scott, Ancient Egypt, Biblical Epics and stunningly realised effects shots; you can do a lot worse - if you're willing to slog your way through a rather turgid first hour.
Working Girl (1988)
Dated, slight and very 80s.
This came out when I was a kid, and while it was a pretty huge hit at the time, I've only finally seen it now. While it remains reasonably entertaining, it's all very slight, dated, and pretty toothless as a satire of business and workplace sexual politics. How Melanie Griffith was ever seen as a sex symbol us beyond me (but that's subjective). Harrison Ford and Sigourney Weaver are both great as ever (that's more objective!) - and it's a bit of a thrill seeing them share the screen (if only for a few minutes). But everything else just plays as so predictable and mediocre.
One thing worth mentioning; the wardrobe, hair and makeup in Working Girl is utterly horrendous. A good part of that is intentional (satire!) but not all. I'm not sure what Mike Nichols had against secretaries - or women in general - but he seemed intent on making them all look like drag queens who got dressed in the dark in this movie - and yet makes sure Harrison Ford looks great throughout. Weird.
Disappointing but mildly diverting.
Apocalypto (2006)
Gibson's best work. Thrilling and original.
Re-watched for the first time since release and have to say it's even better than I remembered. I tried to revisit a few years back, but was put off by the opening 15 mins - which is Gibson's filmmaking at his worst (the kind of juvenile sadistic humour and gratuitous violence that seems to mirror the more disturbing aspects of his character). But this time I stuck with it, and I have to say, once things gets going... it's Gibson's best work by a mile. Wow, what a ride! The middle hour is about as hypnotic and unique an experience as anything you'll find on film.
Fabulous setting, art direction and editing. I'm not a fan of the hideous HFR/fast shutter digital stuff in some shots - but thankfully there aren't enough of these to ruin the wonderful overall look of the film.
If you've never seen it, I'd probably describe it as Last of the Mohicans meets Quest for Fire (both seem like influences) - while I'd say Avatar and The Northman both owe Apocalypto a pretty big debt.
Fabulous, thrilling and original stuff.
Stay (2005)
Hilariously pretentious student film with Hollywood stars and a budget.
I came across this curiosity, intrigued I'd never heard about it - even more so when I saw it seemed to have a minor cult following, so I decided to check it out.
In some ways I'm glad I did, as it was so entertainingly awful I could barely take my eyes off it. It's like someone tried to make a Lynchian thriller who had only ever read badly translated Wikipedia synopses of Lynch's films. It's The Room with a budget and colour grading. It's The Matrix meets Sixth Sense directed by Guy Ritchie. It is so bad it's hilariously gloriously awful. There is indeed a very good reason you've never heard of this film.
The story never starts. There are no characters to speak of, just actors emoting mental trauma and delivering terrible stilted surreal dialogue for 90 minutes. It should look good but it's so hideously over-shot, lit, and edited that it looks cheap and amateur. It's simultaneously pretentious and moronically stupid - which is always a hilarious combination. The whole thing reminded me of some terrible student films I'd seen in the past.
If anyone ever recommends this to you, I advise smiling politely, thanking them and giving them a very wide berth.
Faraway Downs (2023)
Recommended for Baz Luhrmann super-fans and sadomasochists only.
I'm still ambivalent about Baz Luhrmann. His hi-camp musical stuff can be infectious, but also headache inducing. I was always intrigued to see 'Australia', but never had - so when this 'reimagined' version came out, I assumed it was his preferred version, so decided I'd give it a go. I ended up watching it all (my wife inexplicably loved it, and I currently have a broken ankle so couldn't escape), but frankly I found enduring the whole thing almost as painful as my double-fracture.
I'm not sure where to even begin - but for me it basically failed on every level; mainly because it clearly wants be too many things at once. Epic-romance; social drama; war movie; fantasy adventure; western; Hollywood golden-era homage... you name it, Baz aims - and misses spectacularly. The fact he decided to recut this into a 5 hour (or so) mini series beggars belief - or that anyone would even let him bother. I wish I'd just had to endure the 3h movie - but then I'm guessing that's even worse...?
Suffice to say the pacing is all over the place, the visual effects are absurd (and hideously obvious), the script is a mess, dialogue appalling, score and music (redone from the film apparently) cheap and out of place, and performances horrendously wooden. The whole thing basically feels like a weird western romantic-fiction reimagining of parts of Lord of the Rings crossed with Pearl Harbour and Gone with the Wind - but somehow manages to be infinitely less fun than that sounds.
I admit it had a few decent shots and sequences (it is nearly 5h long and Luhrmann is obviously talented - so by the law of averages at least a few things HAD to work) but overall, recommended for Baz Luhrmann super-fans and sadomasochists only.
Alexander (2004)
Alexander Revisited (director's cut) - worth revisiting!
I saw the theatrical version a year or so after it came out, and while I thought it had been somewhat unfairly critically mauled, it didn't make a huge impression (a few shots/scenes aside). But having got more interested ancient history recently, I thought I might seek this film out again - especially since I'd heard about an (allegedly) superior director's cut (or three...!?). So after tracking down a German-issued blu-ray of the 'revisited' version (which isn't actually the 'final' cut - but was closest I could find and cones in at 3h33m long) I finally sat down to it tonight - and enjoyed it thoroughly!
It's obviously not perfect - but the cut I watched was a grand retelling of Alexander's adventures - and certainly stands up as a decent historical epic. What I found refreshing was although the two main battle sequences which bookend the film are decent, they're not it's raison d'etre and it thrives and entertains as much in between. In many ways, from the revival of the historical epics that ran in the late 90s to mid 2000s (led by Gladiator) this is probably the most 'historic' - since while it doubtless takes liberties (as all films do and must) it at least seems to stick fairly closely to what is (thought to be) known about its subject and period.
The cast are solid - if not spectacular. But a lot of the annoyance people might have found in some of the casting (or accents) on release has probably mellowed now. I particularly enjoyed Jolie's performance this time round.
Some viewers may find the homosexual elements uncomfortable - but if that stuff makes you squeamish, you better steer clear of ancient history altogether!
Anyway - if you're either interested in Alexander the Great - or if you were ambivalent about it on release and are curious about whether the longer cut is worth it; I strongly recommend seeking it out.
John Wick: Chapter 4 (2023)
"Best action movie of all time"...?! Seriously?!?!
I found the first John Wick film pretty dull, but when they turned the whole thing into a kind of superhero/assassin/vampire movie mashup in 2 and 3 it became fun - and of course, hugely stylish. Having seen the warm reception 4 got on release I was pretty excited to see it, but cuing it up this evening I found it a huge anti-climax.
I've actually broken halfway as I found it so tedious - whether I'll ever bother to return to the second half remains to be seen. Yes, the fight scenes were well choreographed, but they are also hugely repetitive and there is little danger or suspense involved in any of what I saw. The story is utterly non-existent - relying entirely on us caring about some nonsense 'lore' I can't imagine any casual viewer caring about (or even recalling from previous movies). Most of the cast look bored or embarrassed to be here. The only thing that kept me interested was Donnie Yen. I know he's a Chinese megastar (now I can see why), but I've only seen a few of his movies and this made me want to go watch more of him and dump this altogether.
It's all just so repetitive and tedious (club setting/neon lights/endless 'gun-kata' fights) and feels like a three hour deleted scene montage from JW 2/3.
I'll revise this review if I end up watching the second half and change my mind, but I doubt it. And anyone who tries to tell you this is 'the best action movie of all time' clearly hasn't seen many action movies. Or movies full stop.
After Love (2020)
Dynamite
Don't recall ever seeing a better low budget drama than this. I have to admit it always feels like a bit of a chore to set aside an evening for seemingly 'worthy' films like this - but this one was well and truly worth it. Not a second wasted, every scene and shot was brilliantly thought out and laced with purpose. The story and drama is totally authentic and utterly riveting throughout.
Aleem Khan is definitely a name to watch; can't recall seeing a better feature debut than this. Always loved Joanna Scanlan (reason we watched it to start with) - and she was fantastic - as we're the rest of the cast.
I actually found this more thrilling than any big-budget movie (in any genre) I've seen in ages. Thoroughly recommended - especially if you think it might be boring! Bravo to all involved. Great filmmaking.
Deadwood (2019)
A fitting conclusion. If only they'd had more time back then.
Don't listen to the detractors. I just came off the back of watching the original all the way through (for the second time) and although the first 30 mins of this 'movie' is jarring and feels somewhat incongruous, it does eventually settle into a natural rhythm and provides a fitting end to one of the greatest TV shows ever made.
Sadly, it only has around 95mins to suck you back in, tell its story, and try and conclude all the major character arcs - which leaves you wishing they had more time - but I'm glad it exists, and will definitely watch again when I next re-watch the show (as I know I will). I just felt the start let it down - but hard to reset the scene when most people won't remember what the hell happened 15 years ago. Just wish they'd been allowed to make a few more seasons of this back in the day. Still remains the best thing HBO has ever done.
Hilarious how I used to think of Ian McShane as a joke (in the UK in the 80s he was daytime TV fodder) - only for Deadwood to make me realise he's one of the greatest actors of his generation. A thespian deity!
The Mandalorian: Chapter 13: The Jedi (2020)
Best slice of Star Wars since the original trilogy
Best episode of a great show. Absolutely stunning. Pacing, art direction, action, heart - all fit together perfectly here to make a near flawless 45 mins or so. And Rosario Dawson is amazing. Wish she got more big roles, she's never short of brilliant.
Gisaengchung (2019)
Best film to win "Best Film" in about twenty years!
Maybe one day I'll come back and write a more eloquent review, but suffice to say having just seen this tonight, I think it's one of the best films I've seen in years. An almost indescribable satirical-drama-thriller that gets about everything pitch perfect and surprises at every turn.
Bong Joon-ho really is a genius (even if Okja was terrible)!
WATCH!
Tenet (2020)
Nolan's $200 million reverse car crash
I fully appreciate Chris Nolan's talent - specifically how he builds films around intriguing concepts using a uniquely muscular visual and audio style. But while I love so much about what he does, I find a lot of his recurring habits when it comes to pacing, editing and exposition deeply annoying - and that they detract from his obviously massive talents in other areas. Maybe I'm not on his natural wavelength of pacing, but on first viewings I usually find his films too rushed and choppy to properly connect with - though I almost always find I come to appreciate them a lot more with subsequent viewings. This was especially true of Interstellar (left me underwhelmed on first viewing, but have since come to like a lot) and to a lesser extent Inception (really disliked on fist viewing but came to appreciate). And given what I'd read about the advised "multiple viewings" for Tenet I went in aware this might be the first step of a long journey to appreciation - rather than a shot of instant gratification.
I also went in arrogantly assuming that I'd be able to follow a plot many have claimed lost them; I've got a background in science and philosophy and have spent years writing about time travel and other possible worlds - so how hard could it be?
I even went armed with a pair of earplugs to deploy should the sub bass of the score and sound effects start to overwhelm the dialogue on the already notorious soundtrack mix.
And so, equipped with all this foreknowledge - as if preparing for a mission or exam - I went excitedly into my local IMAX for the first time this year.
Sadly, I was still ill-prepared.
The first hour or so flew by nicely. Despite the reports I'd heard about the soundtrack, I could hear pretty much everything that was being said fairly clearly, and I was managing to keep my head above water on Nolan's typical choppy editing. I quite enjoyed the pacing actually, and liked the way the sci-fi concept was kept bubbling under in the background for the first hour.
But then the wheels started to fall off.
I think it really began around the (beautifully shot) catamaran sailing scene, in which Kenneth Branagh's character starts relaying key plot points over a microphone and earpiece - over the sound of the sea and flapping sails. You literally cannot hear a damn word.
From then on, I was playing catch-up. And sadly, things would only get worse. From this point it seems, every line of dialogue is barked through either a mask, mic, or walkie-talkie. Pretty soon the whole thing sounds like a Bane convention broadcast on shortwave radio.
But just go with it, I told myself. "Don't try to understand it. Feel it!" Sure, you can't hear everything, but you can pick up enough to get the gist, right?
Well, kind of.
The problem is that pretty soon the gist itself seems to make no sense - even on its own terms. Well-worn musings on time travel get barked by characters (who weirdly seem to lurch between knowing everything and nothing about such concepts) - bearing no resemblance to the questions you actually want answering about what's unfolding on or off screen.
Scenes and shots start to crash into being without warning or context, and pretty soon the whole thing starts to feel like someone got you drunk and is making you watch a foreign film without subtitles. Backwards.
Though the weird thing is I never actually switched off. And I have to say the 2h45m flew by. I guess this is some testament to the technical aspects of the film (which stays looking pretty gorgeous throughout, with Ludwig Göransson's score always interesting) - as well as my faith that Nolan would somehow find a way to make it all come together and pay off in the end (though I can't say I really found any intellectual or emotional closure in the ending).
I suppose I should say a bit about the performances - but the general incoherence of the film (not to mention some truly wretched dialogue) kind of overshadows all of them. The only thing I'd seen JDW in before was BlacKkKlansman, and I was a bit underwhelmed by his performance in that. Sadly he felt very similar here. He just always feels a bit passive and vacant - which is weird since his father has such a commanding cinematic presence. Branagh managed to be fairly menacing - but mumbled his way horrendously through this film - which is ironic given he used to be a standard bearer for Shakespearean theatre. Pattinson was okay, though is cut-glass accent was a little shaky; and Debicki was good - though it was a little too familiar seeing her basically redo the role she played in The Night Manager.
The horrible irony is this is the film that was supposed to save cinema - when it could very well be the film that ends up being blamed for destroying it. After six months away, what kind of joe-public audience-member is going to come out of this thinking anything other than "I should have just watched this at home with subtitles"?
When I got home, I naturally looked up a bit online to try and find some explanations of the plot made by those with minds (and ears) superior to mine. Frankly I was disappointed, and it seems maybe I didn't miss all that much in the cinema after all. Either that or the online analysts simply failed to understand the same things I did. It seems the time-travel story here isn't actually that complex - it's just the incoherently telling of it that makes it seem that way.
Either way, the problems with this film clearly go far beyond unintelligible dialogue. Nolan seems to have neglected the art for telling a story in a coherent fashion - and perhaps even for a coherent story. One of the key problems for me was that most of the interesting stuff about the story seemed to be happening off-camera - away from what we're actually following (or not following, as the case may be). Characters spend a lot of time talking about the (frankly nonsensical) threat from the future, and the brilliant plans devised to prevent it - but what we seem to get served is unintelligible scraps of a small part of this plan.
Given how my opinions of some other Nolan films have changed, I would certainly like to see Tenet again - but heading back to the IMAX for a second viewing seems utterly pointless, since I can't imagine ever being able to decipher the dialogue I couldn't hear the first time without the aid of subtitles. Sadly, although I may well be wrong, my suspicion is that this film isn't going to get much better with subsequent viewings.
I look forward to seeing what my future self makes of Tenet in ten years' time after seeing it a few more times, but for now I can't really give it anything more than a 5/10.
Mainstream cinema should never be this unintelligible.
Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019)
Decent hang-out nostalgia movie - with a sour taste
Enjoyed it far more than Tarantino's last few movies - for the most part. But the last 15 mins are Tarantino at his absolute worst, and ultimately leave a sour taste in the mouth - after what is otherwise a very enjoyable period hang-out movie.
Weirdly, until the ending, you might be hard pushed to even tell this was even a Tarantino film. It's visually and stylistically languid (in an enjoyable way) - but not as self-indulgent on dialogue as you'd expect (though maybe not as sharp either). It also seems to rely a lot more on traditional (though heavily invisible-vfx-aided) cinematography than his previous movies. In a lot of ways it feels like his his most conventional film. The cast are effective, the mood is enjoyable, and I can see what he was going for - even with the ending - though I think he made a terrible hash of it.
Tarantino is obviously a hugely gifted filmmaker. Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs are stone cold classics, and all his films have flashes of genius. But his obsessions with graphic misogynistic violence and self-righteous masochistic revenge become more disturbing with each film. It demeans his output, and leave you questioning the sincerity of everything else he puts on screen these days. Although for nearly 2h 30mins here, I thought he might have finally grown up - the last 15 mins see him once again cave-in to all his worst instincts.
There's still a lot of fun to be had here, but I'd just love to see a Tarantino movie that didn't involve trying to raise giggles from teenage boys by smashing another woman's face in or dishing out boorish ultraviolence to more wrongdoers from history.
Because when he's not doing these things he's still an excellent filmmaker.
PS - The depiction of Bruce Lee in this film is a truly bizarre - especially when you'd assume QT was a big fan. Another sour taste.
Apollo 13 (1995)
A great story - but not a great movie
A decent-enough telling of the incredible events of the Apollo 13 mission - but fairly by-the-numbers 90s movie-making (with some added cheese). Having seen it numerous times over the years I've never felt like it really sucks you in and makes you feel part of the events unfolding - just leaves you conscious that you're watching a (competent) Hollywood re-enactment (much like most of the accompanying HBO From the Earth to the Moon show). Pales in comparison to the Right Stuff - which remains the benchmark of NASA movies.
The take-off sequence (and accompanying score) remain the most memorable part for me.
Long Shot (2019)
Another nail in the coffin of the rom-com
Awful. Seemingly wants to be Veep meets Pretty Woman for millennials - as if that's a film anyone would want to watch. I guess it might be if the whole thing hadn't been passed through the Hollywood rom-com filter sausage machine. The film pulls in so many conflicting directions - it leaves you wondering just who the hell they thought the target audience was. Theron is a proper movies star and Rogen is an affable presence but right from the first scene this whole thing just feels off. All presented in that awful Hollywood rom-com sheen totally-alien-from-reality world that has somehow become ubiquitous and has effectively killed off the genre. Failed to make it beyond the halfway mark.
1917 (2019)
Exceptional filmmaking (derivative score aside)
Brilliantly made. The one-shot thing comes off a lot better here than in other films I've seen it used in, and creates a genuine sense of geography and immersion. It does feel a bit like playing an on-the-rails video game at times - but a very good one - and emotional engagement remains strong throughout.
I've never been much of a fan of Mendes before, but I thought this was some pretty exceptional filmmaking.
Always known cinematographer Roger Deakins is a genius - and this further confirms it.
However, 1917 just falls short of being a 10* film for me - because some of the creative choices felt a bit too borrowed from recent movies (e.g. Dunkirk and The Revenant) - especially Thomas Newman's score - which sounded like a shameless rip off of cues from Hans Zimmer's scores for Dunkirk, The Thin Red Line and The Dark Knight - which I can only guess were all used on the temp track.
Still - an excellent film, well-worthy of joining the canon of Great War/anti-War movies.
The Boys (2019)
Decent pilot but then...
Although it's essentially just an 21st century update of Watchman, the pilot has some decent new ideas and is fairly well packaged - though isn't exactly amazing, and some of the writing is pretty basic.
But episode two became such a dull slog it left me clawing my eyes out in boredom.
Abandoned.
The Dark Tower (2017)
Horrendously bad
I've only read the first book - so not a Dark Tower devotee by any means, and in theory I have no issue in filmmakers "reimagining" books for the screen given the differences in the two mediums.
But my God, this is awful.
On about every level imaginable.
Truly, utterly awful.
Unwatchably so.
And I've tried twice.
The filmmakers should hang their heads in shame.
I feel sorry for Elba and McConaughey, who probably thought these would be iconic roles (they should be!) - though McConaughey is unusually awful - and I can only imagine he'd twigged what a train wreck he was involved in once they started shooting.
If you like King, fantasy, sci-fi etc you'll probably want to check it out from sheer curiosity- assuming it can't be that bad.
But it really is.
The OA (2016)
Ambitious and slick - but a bit mopey - and overly reliant on mystery-box writing.
Having now watched both series of the OA, I found it a bit of a mixed bag. On the plus side some great really concepts are explored - but I found much of the story they are hung on fairly unengaging and many of the characters mopey and annoying. More importantly, rather than exploring show's core concepts to satisfaction, the writers seem to have fallen into the trap of piling on new concepts purely for the sake of trying to preserve a perpetual sense of intrigue.
Ultimately, as season 2 progressed it felt like The OA was falling into same trap Lost did - creating mystery purely for mystery's sake - with an increasing sense that the creators had no real idea how they would eventually pay-off or tie-up the endlessly multiplying concepts and strands. As long as they could engineer enough intrigue to get another season.
Except they didn't.
Or did they? I have a sneaky suspicion the whole show-cancellation story is actually just a Netflix marketing ruse to drum up interest in the show before they renew for another season.
Either way, there should come a point where the story and drama of the situation take over, but The OA's creators seem so terrified that their viewers aren't going to be engaged enough by that - or perhaps they aren't sure how to do it - that they feel the need to fall back on a perpetual mystery box approach that ultimately feels like a bit of a viewer scam.
It's a shame because like I say, there are some great elements and concepts in here (not to mention Jason Isaacs!) but it just felt like it was trying to set up itself for an endless season renewals rather than tell a satisfying story to completion.
That said, the rug-pull at the end of Season 2 is pretty neat - though it would probably set up a rather excruciating series 3 if it ever happens.
The Lion King (2019)
Faithful and visually dazzling remake that's probably a little too faithful to the original to become a classic of its own.
This is a faithful and visually dazzling retelling of the hand-drawn classic - but its reverence to the original film is likely to hold it back from becoming as well-loved a classic in its own right.
Favreau clearly loves the original - and he's so scared of messing with what was perfect in the cell-drawn version that there is often a feeling of an elaborate cover-version rather than the film finding its own unique identity (as his version of Jungle Book successfully did).
I think most people would agree that the best thing about the original film is its opening act - both in terms of story and visuals. And Favreau is so aware of this that he lovingly recreates the whole thing almost shot for shot. Unfortunately, it's so close a recreation that anyone familiar with the original is likely to be left feeling a little torn by what they're watching - undeniably impressive as it is visually. It doesn't help that the re-casting's are sometimes a little off (why bring back James Earl Jones but not Jeremy Irons? This was a strange choice - and a jarring mistake) and just as you get used to hearing the same lines spoken by someone new a new line comes along to jar things - or a familiar one is omitted. It leads to a general feeling of unease in fans of the original. That said, if you were coming to it fresh, having never seen the original, I think you'd be just as bowled over as I was watching the 90s version for the first time - if not more so.
Where the new version fairs far better is in its second half - after Simba has left the pride. In my view, the original film, classic though it is, really fell off in the second half - slightly in terms of story-telling but especially in its visuals - with character and background art paling in comparison with that wonderful opening half. This remake however, maintains a benchmarking level of visual splendour throughout - which gives the story a lot more weight in the second half. The appearance of Timon and Pumbaa invigorate this new film as too - with the re-castings here being such a success that they instantly strip away memories of the originals. This sections departs slightly more from the original too - in terms of visuals and dialogue - which makes the whole film suddenly feel a lot more like its own animal.
A lot has been made by detractors of the animation being "emotionless" in comparison to the original. While I can understand this point to a degree - I also think these people may have misunderstood the filmmakers intentions. What Favreau has done here follows the same animation template as established in Jungle Book - i.e. setting a constraint that the animals' faces and bodies should not move much beyond what would be physically possible in the real world. This means you won't get grinning lions or warthogs blowing raspberries, and that expressions are never going to be as over the top as they can be in cell-animation (which has no rules). If they were it would look absurd. Instead the animators use more realistic (and less anthropomorphic) tricks to get the animals to emote. It's a far more low-key approach, but a lot of thought and effort has clearly gone into it. It may be lost on a lot of people perhaps (and maybe children) - and is probably the main reason this version won't be as big a crowd-pleaser as the original - but anyone who really knows or loves animals (the real kind) is likely to find it pretty captivating and ingenious.
I'm a little surprised this remake has been so polarising and generally went down poorly with critics, since it's unequivocally a technical marvel of a film - and absolutely heads and shoulders above all the other Disney "remakes", other than perhaps Jungle Book. But I guess anytime you revisit a classic like the Lion King you're going to rustle some feathers. Take out the loony posters howling at the moon about "political correctness" and you still have a lot of sane-minded people unhappy with this remake. While I can sympathise with some of their grievances, at the end of the day, as someone who really loves the original, I still found this version hugely enjoyable and emotionally captivating. I only wish it had taken a few more risks - and that they hadn't dumped my favourite Hans Zimmer music cue (Simba running back to the pride over the desert)!
Years and Years (2019)
Hugely ambitious show that sadly fails to live up to its excellent opening episodes.
A great idea with massive ambition, Years and Years ultimately overreaches and suffers from the increasingly broad strokes applied to the story telling as the series progresses. There's still a lot to admire here - especially in the first few episodes, which are genuinely terrifying - but for me, sadly this show never lives up to its lofty ambitions and potential - and really falls off as it progresses.
I saw someone describe it as Black Mirror meets This Is Us - which is a pretty good description - and along with the nightmarish satire on the future there is some genuine heart. I've never been a fan of what little I've seen of Russel T Davies' previous work - I've always found his dialogue a bit clunky and his approximations of realism slightly off. That said, the first couple of episodes of Years and Years were so strong in concept I was willing to overlook the odd clunk - but sadly my grievances with his previous work came back to the fore as the series progressed. The drama often deflates under excessive exposition - and the repeated attempts to hide this within naturalised dialogue start to sound ever more clunky. Murray Gold's score also becomes quickly distracting and overbearing. Uneven performances didn't help things. Russell Tovey, Anne Reid, Emma Thompson and Ruth Madely are all great - but some of the support is uneven - and some of the actors required to do more heavy lifting as the series goes on just aren't up to it. Sadly what starts out as cutting horror-satire - because of its plausibility - quickly descends into uneven sci-fi with some ideas absurd to contemplate within the timeframe the series operates in.
Ultimately it was a little maddening in its unevenness - but I am glad I saw it - though it kind of felt like a glorious failure.
Life (2017)
Imagine 'Alien' meets 'Gravity' - only terrible!
My god this film is awful. EYE-ROLLINGLY AWFUL!
I can only assume the original pitch was something like "Alien meets Gravity!", which may have been a reasonable idea if the screenplay wasn't such utter guff. It's all just all soooo dull and soooo derivative. It feels like it must have been written by an AI bot given the task of writing a screenplay that only studio execs would love. A mildly refreshing narrative twist about 30 mins in almost conned me thinking the film might not turn out to be as insufferable as initially seemed. Sadly this was not to be.
So, prepare to be bored to death by a mind-numbingly dull crew of astronauts battling the most hilariously unthreatening GCI monster in movie history. Seriously, at times it felt like I was watching a parody of Alien with Patrick Star from Spongebob as the monster. Prepare to be underwhelmed by long Gravity-lite tracking shots that only make you wish you were watching that film instead. And prepare to be perplexed as to what the heck Jake Gyllenhaal doing in this rubbish (For that matter what the heck is Jake Gyllenhaal doing with his career?! This, Okja and Velvet Buzzsaw represent a recent trilogy of tripe from a star whose presence used to tend to indicate a decent film more often than not.)
Avoid at all costs, unless your thing is poor quality rip-offs of better movies. Far, far better movies.
The Breaker Upperers (2018)
Hugely disappointing
Being a huge fan of the recent NZ stable of comedy (Flight of the Conchords, Taika Waititi etc) I was expecting to love this - especially given the fact it features so many familiar performers. But... man, what a disappointing mess this is. How on earth it was rated so highly by critics is beyond me. The performers are clearly very talented comics but the writing here is just appalling - and the whole thing feels utterly rudderless. The concept is played out over a trailer-like montage in the opening minutes leaving the rest of the movie as a meandering set of underdeveloped sketches in search of something resembling a story. This could be forgivable if the whole thing were funny... But it all just feels half-assed and lazy. The whole thing reminds me of the kind of awful movies that were coming out of the UK in the 90s/2000s featuring strong performers trying to make a transition from small to big screen. On the plus side, the key performers are clearly great, but their lack of screenwriting skills have really let them down here creating an painful mess.
Halt and Catch Fire (2014)
The best US TV drama since Mad Men - and possibly better!
It's been a couple of weeks since I finished Halt and Catch Fire, and I still can't stop thinking about it.
I was introduced to this show by my wife in late 2017, having (like many) heard nothing about it. I was blown away almost immediately. Being a big fan of Mad Men, the similarities were conspicuous right away - and you can't help getting the feeling the creators originally pitched this to AMC as "Mad Men in the 80s - with computers!" While there's nothing wrong with that setup - luckily the show establishes its own identity fairly quickly. The character of Joe MacMillan, for example, may initially seem like little more than a Don Draper clone, but eventually he grows into something very different - and ultimately more satisfying.
The IT setting may feel like a turn-off for many, but I am simply staggered at how well the writers managed to weave character, story and fun into the development of some fairly dry and esoteric IT projects that take place during the show. Even if you don't understand 100% of the tech-side of things (which feels brilliantly researched) - you won't care, because you'll get enough of the gist to join the dots and get carried along by the narrative momentum.
But what really makes this show are, of course, the characters - who are all brilliantly written and performed. The cast are uniformly exemplary. Lee Pace, MacKenzie Davis, Scoot McNairy, Kerry Bishe, Toby Huss... I could go on. These are career-defining performances - thanks to some brilliant casting and the strength of the material they're given to work with.
Given that the budget of this show was likely miniscule compared to other 'big TV' of the moment, it looks and sounds fantastic. The imaginative use of lighting and colour gives Halt and Catch Fire its own visual identity - and makes it far more interesting to look at than most 'drama' shows on TV. The use of music is also great - avoiding obvious 80s/90s musical touchstones for the most part - and I guarantee by the end of the show there'll be a few classic songs you won't be able to ever hear again without thinking of this show. The theme tune (theme 'pulse' may be a better description) is also brilliantly evocative.
There are a few issues, of course - the biggest being that the show stutters badly midway through the third series - which began to feel like it was treading water and running out of ideas. Luckily it emerges from this rut triumphantly, and the fourth and final series was some of the best television I've ever seen.
As you can probably tell by now, I can't recommend this show enough. I don't bother writing many reviews on here these days - but I felt duty bound to on this since it's one of those shows that I know will sit in my mind forever. So, if you've heard people talking about Halt and Catch Fire and are on here checking out user reviews to decide whether it's worth your time - I'm hoping this might nudge you into watching it. If it does, I really hope you enjoy it as much as I did.