 I’m one of those people that think that Marvel should have gone on hiatus after Avengers Endgame; it was the perfect ending to that era of films, and they should have waited, not only to build audience anticipation, but also to figure out what the hell they were going to do?!
Instead, they went the ‘cash-grab’ route and dragged the brand through the mud with sh!t film after sh!t film, as well as mediocre shows on TV. Still, as someone trying to keep the ‘movie-going’ experience alive, I feel duty-bound to go to the cinema whenever possible, and so, I watched Marvel’s latest offering, ‘Thunderbolts’. It was actually alright! Florence Pugh was by far the best thing about it! She really added likeability, as well as empathy to her character, not to mention some much needed humour! The way the rest of the characters bantered with one another was also quite fun, as well as the way they acknowledged that none of them were ‘prime’ characters or characters in their prime; especially given how Marvel has spent the past five years trying to pass off bottom tier characters as top tier material. I also appreciated that the story tackled the mental health crisis the world is currently facing. Covid was a nightmare that continues to haunt us (even if you emerged mentally/physically unscathed, you’re still paying for it through your taxes), and with the combined threat of avaricious Billionaires and Artificial Intelligence, we seem to propelling ourselves towards a dystopia at ever increasing speed! That said, the second half of the movie seemed quite dull compared to the first half, and the climax was anti-climactic to say the least. Overall, it’s an ‘Okay’ movie, but better than anything Marvel has made in recent times. Worth checking out for some decent entertainment, but still not hitting the ‘pre-Endgame’ levels of Marvel movies.
0 Comments
 I watched this 1960 film for the first time, primarily for research purposes, and I have to say, it was good!
I’ve said it before, but it’s depressing how the films and filmmakers from decades ago took far more risks than their modern day equivalent. Because of that, this film still, 65 years after it was released, seems innovative! Whilst it’s not ‘thrilling’ or ‘scary’ in any way, it does provide a compelling character study of someone on the fringes of society, and in the ‘incel’ scapegoating world we live in today, it’s definitely still very pertinent. It’s because we’re intrigued by the film’s protagonist, that it doesn’t matter that we know who the killer is within the first five minutes of the film; what keeps us watching is trying to find out why he behaves the way he does. In that sense, the filmmaker makes a ‘Peeping Tom’ (Voyeur) out of the audience, in the same way the protagonist of the film is one. Of course, such brilliant filmmaking comes at the hands of a master, and its sad that the film caused such notoriety when released, that the filmmaker in question, Michael Powell, found it difficult it to work again. I guess that’s partly why filmmakers nowadays are so risk-averse; they want to keep working! The irony is, when your movies are so bland, nobody in the audience wants you to! Also, I think this is probably the first of Michael Powell’s films that I’ve seen! Shock! Horror! Anyway, with a great premise, a great ending, and a brilliant examination of character (as well as a few in-jokes about filmmaking), this film should be on every filmmaker’s list of films to watch! As a Londoner, I also enjoyed catching glimpses of Rathbone Place and Newman’s Passage from back in the day! (Roads I still walk down frequently!)  Firstly, I am all about auteur driven cinema, and original films versus works based on existing “I.P.” so I want this movie to succeed. I also REALLY wanted to like it!
The whole world and their dog has been raving about how good it is, so there’s definitely a lot of hype surrounding it. ...I just got back from the cinema, so my thoughts are fresh. Man, what an absolute disappointment! It felt overly long, self-indulgent, completely lacked focus in its storytelling, and was often just plain boring. Also, it suffered from ‘Return of the King’ syndrome, in that it simply did not want to end! There’s like three endings to this film! (including the two post-credit scenes; a completely unwarranted Marvel trope) It’s like the filmmaker wanted to make a story about The Blues in Mississippi, centred around two brothers, but thought it wouldn’t be commercial enough, so threw in a story about Vampires to sell the idea. The latter seems so irrelevant to the overall story, that they’re literally just there to add an ‘exciting’ climax to the final act. If I didn’t know that this film was made with the filmmaker having unprecedented control, I’d guess a ‘dumb’ studio exec only green-lit the film on the basis that they shoe-horn some Vampires in at the end! The film is well-made, the music and cast are all decent, but it’s absolutely nothing special. It’s an ‘okay’ movie, which in any other decade of cinema, would merely be a ‘B-Movie’ to keep the cinema screens busy until something better came along. Frankly, it’s a sad sign of the times that this is being hailed as some modern masterpiece. It reminds me of Marvel’s ‘Black Panther’ (also by Ryan Coogler) which was hailed as the best superhero film ever made, and even nominated for Best Picture, when in fact, it was mediocre at best. I believe the modern parlance for this movie would be ‘mid’. Fair-play to Ryan Coogler though; whatever he does, both Hollywood and the audience seem to love. Personally, I think his best film is still ‘Fruitvale Station’.  Who doesn't want to see Tom Hardy kicking ass in a Gareth Evans movie?
Well, if it’s this particular movie, not me!! I had high hopes, given the calibre of talent involved in this movie, but what a load of crap it turned out to be! Cliché characters, nonsensical set-pieces, a convoluted plot and absolutely no point to any of it! If the story was strung together, just to showcase the action scenes, I could forgive the whole thing, if those action scenes were good. But they’re not. They’re so ludicrous, you can’t possibly take them seriously! You’ve got dozens of henchmen with machine guns firing at the small group of heroes trapped in a wooden cabin, and the heroes manage to dodge every single bullet, yet every shot they fire in the opposite direction takes out a bad guy! Even Bollywood movies from the 80s weren’t this ridiculous (actually, they were, but still!)! Also, just how many Chinese characters were killed in this movie? Surely that’s gotta be a hate crime or something?? Seriously, what a dumb, wasted opportunity of a movie. It’s every inch a Netflix film; i.e. made for people who watch movies while they’re doom scrolling on their phones. Do yourselves a favour; avoid this and just rewatch ‘The Raid’ or ‘Warrior’ again.  Confession time.
This was the first time I’d seen Steven Spielberg’s debut movie, Duel. I know, I know, don’t judge me! I watched the cropped 16:9 Theatrical version, which is longer than the original TV Movie version, and I have to say, the latter probably works better. I firmly believe that a film should be as efficient as possible, and sustaining a chase for as long as this film does, whilst very impressive, does begin to feel a bit much. Still, in terms of pure storytelling, this film is a great example of how little you need to keep an audience engaged! It’s good, but would I watch it again? Probably not. Not for fun anyway; as an examination of film technique? Absolutely. Hats off to Spielberg! To have made this film at the age of 22 or 23, and shot it in only 12 days??!! I mean, for that alone he deserves every plaudit he can get! Brilliant filmmaker, in every sense, and a mightily impressive debut!  J’adore French things; from their cinema, their love of the arts right down to the hairy armpits of their women (just kidding). Everything except their cuisine!
I also like Audrey Tautou, and felt like watching a romance (to compensate for the lack of it in my own life), so I decide to watch this movie (from Jean-Pierre Jeunet, the guy that also made the much loved ‘Amelie’). I have to say, it didn’t really hit the spot for me. It was like a ‘softer’ version of ‘Paths of Glory’, with a strong female lead, but very little actual romance. It’s also kind of a ‘detective story’, with the mystery surrounding certain events and characters sustaining the audience’s interest. Once the mystery is solved, the film ends, quite abruptly. The cast and locations are all very French, and along with the cinematography, they’re all very pleasing to the eye, but there was something missing. The primary love story was so under-developed, that there was no sense of longing to see the characters reunited. It was neither a good war movie (not enough grit), nor a good romance (not enough romance!), so the whole experience was rather underwhelming. It’s still worth watching though, especially if you’re also a Francophile, because it very much appeals to the France of our imagination; visually beautiful with an unreasonable precedence given to matters of the heart.  I watched this early 90s film for the first time; it’s good!
Based on the real misadventures of US Marines, it details a ‘dogfight’. and the consequences for one couple. It’s quite painful to see how callous people can be to one another, just for their own amusement, but that’s how people are. Fundamentally, this film is a coming of age story about learning to value a person beyond their physical appearance; something we all need reminding of, especially in the social media, ‘filter’ filled world we live in now. I watched the bonus material (on the blu-ray), and once again, this is a film that greatly benefited from having a female director at the helm. Nancy Savoca talks about how in the original script, the story was entirely centred around River Phoenix’s character, and how she worked to flesh out Lili Taylor’s character, much to the film’s advantage. The ‘undesirables’ of this world are invisible to us; all our eyes ever seem to notice are the attractive members of our society, yet the ‘undesirables’ are often the people with the most depth, personality and heart. I also liked how Savoca referenced ‘Marty’, another great film that tackles the subject of trying to find love when you’re ‘undesirable’. Both lead actors shine, but with River Phoenix dying so young, we’re reminded of just how big a loss he was. Anyway, as with most films, the less you know, the better, so if you fancy a nice character driven ‘coming of age’ film, with a heavy dose of 1960s nostalgia, give it a watch!  Sigh.
This is one of those films that makes you think that as a filmmaker, I really am trying too hard. I mean, if films like this can get funding, get made, and be released in cinemas, then why am I spending so long on trying to ‘perfect’ my stories? Just do what these guys did, and call it a day. In fairness to the filmmakers, I appreciate the fact that the film is a fusion of genres, mixing the slasher movie with a romcom, but the execution of it is so poor, that it satisfies neither genre. Also, special shout out to the bland, well lit, saturated cinematography, if it can be called that, because there’s nothing ‘cinematic’ about it. It’s videography, plain and simple. This film tries combine the best tropes from each genre, but ends up being a pale imitation of films like Scream, and any Romcom you care to think of. Not gonna waste time dissecting it, but the film did fill me with the sense of optimism that I could do better. Now it’s time to put up or shut up.  When The Dark Knight came out in 2008, Christopher Nolan wowed the world. We were eager to see what his next film would be, and a year later, he once again, blew our socks off; his status as a legendary filmmaker was set. In fact, everyone involved in ‘Inception’ seems to have brought their ‘A-game’.
The film has lost none of its epic storytelling prowess, and remains one of the best examples of what Hollywood cinema is at its finest! Big movie stars, grand set-pieces, a thrilling, globe-trotting storyline, a great soundtrack and brilliant visual effects. The kind of movie Cinemas were invented for. What sets this movies apart from the rest, however, is that it not only provides the spectacle, but also provides a gripping, character based story, something Hollywood seems to have forgotten how to do. Inception is a great film, and one of Nolan’s best. My only criticism would have to be that, the ending, like that of The Dark Knight Rises, makes absolutely no sense! Nolan creates all these rules for the world he’s created, and then to create a high stakes, all or nothing ending, he throws those rules out the window, which does provide a thrilling ending, but also loses all logic and coherence! I think his reasoning is that, if you care enough about the characters, logical storytelling can take a back seat, which is true, but not something I would want to imitate to be honest. For me, everything has to make sense… which is probably why I struggle to finish my projects! Anyway, I loved revisiting it, and look forward to watching it again in the future! Great film.  I’m blasting David Bowie’s ‘Modern Love’ on repeat as I write this.
Anyway, it was late on Thursday, I hadn’t done much with my day (or my life), so to give the day some significance, I wanted to watch a movie before I hit the sack. Like I said, it was late, so I did a quick search for movies under 90 minutes (unfortunately, my viewing habits are often decided this way). I remember when ‘Frances Ha’ came out; it was the darling of the Indie scene, and film snobs were raving about it, which in itself made me want to avoid it (J'déteste film snobs). I’ve been talking to a lot of dancers lately (purely for research purposes) and one of them told me that ‘Frances Ha’ was about a dancer and that I should check it out. This was the perfect opportunity. I really liked it! The film is a kind of ‘slice of life’ about a ‘lovable loser’, which is a very tricky subject, but it works because Greta Gerwig is absolutely perfect in the role; she makes the protagonist so damn likeable! A great example of the power of collaboration, with a character crafted by the expertise of the actor playing the part! The first half of the film sparkles with verve and fizz, capturing the youthful ‘dream’ of what it is to be young and full of life in New York City. The second half of the film loses that sparkle, and gains a more wistful tone, as the reality of adulthood (without rich parents) sets in. The monologue that Frances delivers (at the dinner party) about what she’s looking for in life is so simple, and yet profound; I’m sure we’re all looking for the same thing, which helps us bond with her character. Not only was the scene effective, but it was completely necessary, because in the first ten minutes, all the characters in the film felt so foreign to me. I have absolutely nothing in common with these people! Any of them! Still, the film rekindled my lifelong desire to be a twenty-something living the life in New York City! I’m about twenty years late when it comes to that dream, but in mind, there’s always time for everything! I read a review that criticises the film for being a poor imitation of the French New Wave. I’d call it more of a love letter. Besides, the French New Wave was like a million years ago. In short, a great film, and definitely worth watching! |
This page is...
A chronicle of films, shows, and theatre I've seen, as well as books I've read, and talks I may have attended. ArchivesCategories |
RSS Feed
