Yes that's right, I am referring to Wolverine, or Logan if you're not in an X-Men mood. I recently saw the film Logan and went in very few expectations, and granted it wasn't a dreadful film honestly. Now I will preface this review stating that I am not a comic book guy, so I know of very little of the universe of all this stuff as it happens in the actual comic book universe. So apparently many, many years after....some kind of events that aren't ever really explained, there are essentially no mutants anymore. Wolverine is dying somehow finally and is therefore in a weakened, depressive state, and Professor X is ancient and having seizures that wreak havoc on the world around him. Wolverine is essentially taking care of the Professor when they come across this young mutant girl who is being hunted down, and thus they help her and are chased around leading to an epic and climactic face-off. So obviously the highlights of this film are Hugh Jackman as Logan and Patrick Stewart as Charles, and both men did an astounding job with their characters. I actually liked what the writers did with their two characters making them more down to earth, less flashy, and more gritty; it was a very interesting concept. The young girl, who barely speaks the entire film, was played by Dafne Keen and her name is Laura. For an actress who didn't speak much, she performed quite well and provided at times a counterbalance to Logan for levity. Stephen Merchant played Caliban a mutant who helps out Logan with Charles, but the writers didn't do much with him unfortunately; a rather boring and insignificant character. They should have brought back an older version of one of the previous mutants, it would have worked out better. Boyd Holbrook for all intents and purposes was the primary villain in the film, Pierce, and I have to admit that he played that role very, very well; but that was it. And Richard Grant played Dr. Rice, who I suppose you could say was the chief villain, but didn't have as menacing of a presence as the other guy. Those were essentially the major members of the cast; this was a more intimate film than blockbuster. Overall I would say that the casting was mostly well done.
Director James Mangold is a very talented director as he's directed successful dramas, action film, and drama, and I have to say that he did a fine job with this film; he was able to successfully weave together drama and action in a universe dominated by special effects and fancy action sequences. The writers, including the director, Scott Frank and Michael Green did a pretty good job with the story and dialog. There was a good deal of character depth for Logan and Charles in this film, but they could have given it more and that's where I disagree with the direction they took this great idea of a story. Marco Beltrami composed the music, and I honestly don't recall a single note; since I usually recall film music easily if it was good, I'm gonna write that it most likely wasn't, although I will go back and check it out. Given the nature of the story, it should have been a runaway score easily with intimate strings or sweeping woodwinds, or a soaring lone trumpet....alas, it was absent. Even the cinematography by John Mathieson seemed to be lacking. Now, the movie definitely wasn't bad at all, but that doesn't imply that it was good either. This is the best comparison I can provide, Logan is like The Hours but with action and extreme violence. This film is extraordinarily depressing, and everyone dies. It is also a very, very violent film, and I was kind of surprised by the amount of on-screen violence perpetrated towards children that was showed. Just as with the film The Hours, the film Logan is pretty good in regards to acting, the story, and dialog, but it's just so doggone depressing that it overshadows everything, and honestly in this day and age who wants to subject themselves to over 2 hours of that. So, in the end if all of that is your cup of tea then you'll love this film, for everyone else I would say that you aren't really missing anything. Oh and one thing, if you as a parent, friend, guardian, or other take children under 14 to see this film you should be ashamed of yourself subjecting a child to such a depiction of violence. When I saw the film with a friend, this one mother, guardian, friend or other (have to be politically correct) took three small boys to see the film and I'm pretty certain one of them was 7 years of age or younger. Please remember at such a young age the brain is still developing as are a child's emotional and social perceptions and behaviors. Exposing children to such things is never good in the long run, so please be responsible and go watch a Pixar film.
I have to say that I didn't think much of Hacksaw Ridge when I first heard about it. Part of that is most war films that are made after 1970's just aren't that good. 1940's-1970's period saw the best war films ever made, and just after that success (critically and commercially) tends to be elusive, at least for my taste. Granted there are great blips like Saving Private Ryan but I would say that tends to be the exception. Another part is that I'm not really a big fan of Mel Gibson as an actor or director; The Patriot is really the only film of his that I enjoy, and for the most part Signs, but other than that nothing else. The last part I was uncertain about was the story angle of the film which was the main character being a conscientious objector right in the middle of a war; didn't sound that great. Just like many of the characters in the film, it turns out I was so very wrong about my preconceived notions. The film follows the real life story of Desmond Doss who volunteered to participate in WWII as a conscientious objector for spiritual and personal reasons, and how he navigates that as he goes through training and then when the fighting actually takes place. Andrew Garfield is clearly a superior actor (a lot of that probably has to do with the fact that he is British and was schooled in theatre there) and he did such a fantastic job of bringing the real man, Desmond Doss, alive on the screen. He was nominated for an Oscar for the work that he did, and even though I doubt he'll win, he certainly deserves to. Teresa Palmer as his love interest Dorthoy Schutte did equally well as Garfield, and the two of them had amazing on-screen chemistry. Hugo Weaving really showed great depth as an actor as he depicted the war torn veteran soldier father of Garfield's main character (Tom Doss) who suffers from PTSD and has become an alcoholic. Rachel Griffiths as the mother Bertha Doss was lovely as ever of course, and brought even more heart to the story and the central struggle going on with the characters. Sam Worthington (Captain Glover) and Vince Vaughn (Sgt Howell) were both great characters, although Worthington played the more transformative character with greater depth, but Mr. Vaughn was able to play a character that I didn't find overly obnoxious, so that was pretty awesome. The rest of the ensemble cast, particularly the soldiers that trained and fought alongside Garfield's character, were spectacular; they captured the camaraderie and group dynamics that you often saw in earlier (1940's & 1950's) war films with the cast aside from the main characters.
So I enjoyed the film a lot. I laughed, blanched more than a number of times, held back a lot of tears, and I was inspired. Mel Gibson definitely did a fine job as director and deserves that Oscar nomination for Directing and for Best Picture. The screenplay written by Robert Schenkkan and Andrew Knight was for the most part pretty good, although the one major complaint I had was that the film went very, very slow up until Garfield's character enlists and begins boot camp. After that transition, the film doesn't miss a beat. Simon Duggan did a fine job with the cinematography (should have been nominated for an Oscar), John Gilbert received an Oscar nomination for Best Editing, although I disagree that the editing was that good, but it wasn't dreadful. Rupert Gregson-Williams composed the music and I honestly cannot recall if it was any good, but I want to say yes, although if it was really good I would definitely would remember; so not entirely certain on that. The technical aspects of the film were well done; the film was nominated for two Oscars for Sound Editing and Sound Mixing. All in all, it was an amazing film and definitely worth watching, and worth watching again. What I really enjoyed about the film was the real aspect of the film, and what you see at the end of the film just made it all even more amazing. I definitely tip my hat off to the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japanese forces during WWII; there are no greater American heroes than they, and they should be regarded with such reverence and respect. Individuals like that should be the role models for young women and men, not petty celebrities or arrogant athletes. Well one month later, the United States is still functioning as is the rest of the world, despite the antics of terrorists and several dictators; a little less then 8 years to go.
I suppose a lot of people feel like Alice right now....tumbling down the rabbit hole, or more befitting taking a stroll through the looking glass. Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland was visually stunning beyond imagination, and utilized 3-D perfectly, but didn't care much for a lot of the story, but the characters were amazing. And of course Alice Through the Looking Glass continues that tradition, and many of the others as well. So Alice is starting her career as an adventurer, which many don't approve of especially her mother, so she is struggling with that and other social norms that she is not conforming to. However, she gets called to Underland to help the Mad Hatter get better, and in order to do this she has to change the past so she steals time essentially from...time I suppose. A rather fascinating notion actually. Mia Wasikowska as Alice was much better this time around in my opinion, but there wasn't really anything new and dynamic to her character really, although they tried, but she had a good performance. Johnny Depp was as funny and clever as the Mad Hatter, and they got a little deeper with his character, but not really much to stand out. Still as always he was the main draw to the film. Helena Bonham Carter as the Red Queen was of course amazing as always; such a talented actress. Sacha Baron Cohen played time, and he was a little over the top of a character at times, but I actually really enjoyed his character and performance overall. Then there were of course the minor roles/cameos and talented actors and actresses such as: Rhys Ifans (played the Hatter's father), Matt Lucas (Tweedledee & Tweedledum), Lindsay Duncan (Alice's Mother), Leo Bill (Hamish), Andrew Scott, Richard Armitage, Ed Speelers, Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall, Stephen Fry, and Michael Sheen. The film had an excellent cast, although a lot of them could have been utilized more effectively.
The director, James Bobin, did an okay job directing, which considering how much was going on in this film must not have been an easy task; in a blockbuster style film like this there are a lot of moving parts. Perhaps where I find a lot of fault in this film is the writing by Linda Woolverton; the dialog, story, and plot were all interesting ideas but the entire film had a rather scatterbrained feel to it. And yes I know Through the Looking Glass, the book, is rather like that as I have tried to read it on several occasions, but it is so doggone confusing to read. But there can be a certain appeal to something being scatterbrained, that is if it is crafted corrected.....which this film was not. Granted I found it quite entertaining and enjoyable most of the time, but it was also quite ridiculous and senseless as well frequently. There were relatively good special effects, and I didn't see it in 3-D but I imagine it was comparable to the first film. Danny Elfman did the music and it was good, but the music for the first film was quite better. The production design by Dan Hennah was very impressive; all of the sets looked so cool and very interesting. All in all the film was good and enjoyable, but if you miss it then you miss it; it's not one for the record books or enduring time vault. It does provide a most excellent escape from reality though, and judging bu people's moods as of late in the United States and the world, it might be just what the doctor ordered. Although, it was the last film Alan Rickman participated in before his death, so that might help it go down in history for something.
So one of the disadvantages sometimes of living on the West Coast is that things are on earlier if they are scheduled early on the East Coast, like the Presidential Inauguration. So I got up bright and early at 7am and began watching the coverage of the 2017 U.S. Presidential Inauguration. As everything unfolded and led up to the swearing in ceremony, it was very cool to see previous presidents, former House Speakers, the Supreme Court Justices, and other political figures from the past gather to celebrate this fantastic democratic civil ceremony. This entire peaceful and pleasant transfer of power is why our democracy works and continues to do so and has done so since George Washington handed power to John Adams down to G.W. Bush Handing power to Barack Obama. The festivities went off without a hitch, there was a little rain but nothing too much, and everyone looked pretty spectacular. My sister, brother in-law, and nephew were there as my nephew was part of some sort of leadership summit for the STEM program that he participated in this past summer. I am so proud of him and his accomplishments at only almost 11 years of age. Him and his fellow students are going to put a proposal together dealing with technology that is going to go before Congress and President Trump. He's a smart and talented kid. It was very surreal for them, but a very cool experience to participate in. I got to watching everything from home which was great, but it would have been something to be there in person. One day I'll make it to an inauguration ceremony. Well, God bless President Donald Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence and their families, and I hope that they are successful and bring about a greater America in the next four years. Now, back in 2013 for President Obama's last inauguration I wrote a little blurb about it and made some predictions of the future for the 2017 Presidential Inauguration. It goes without saying my predictions were quite wrong, but not all of them. I predicted that Marco Rubio and Chris Christie would run for the GOP ticket, and they did, they just didn't acquire the nomination. I suggested that Joe Biden would run, but he didn't. So for the Presidential Inauguration of 2021 I predict that Donald Trump will run for office again, and that the Democrats will pony up at least Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, and Joaquin Castro as presidential contenders. Now I predict, barring anything disastrous from occurring, that Donald Trump will indeed win a second term. It should be fascinating to see how things tee up in the fall/summer of 2019 though as the candidates prepare to announce their candidacies. Well, you may not like the president, but I think we can all agree that the ceremony is what was important regardless of the outcome, and that hopefully there will be another 45 peaceful and cooperative transitions of power to come and more beyond even that. May God continue to bless and watch over the United States of America.
I have to say first and foremost that I am a fan of Tim Burton, and that I do like and prefer darker films, so my expectations were pretty much in line with all of that when I watched Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. It is not light subject matter in regards to the story I have to say, but I rather enjoyed the idea overall along with the characters. The basic premise is there are "peculiar" children in the world with unique peculiarities, talents, or powers; think mutants from X-Men, but less action oriented. These children live in protective environments guarded by certain individuals who can manipulate time, and they live there to protect themselves from humans, and also from people who are hunting them down for something that they possess. The main character, Jake, has a unique peculiarity which is greatly helpful for the group of children that he meets after his grandfather dies. With Miss Peregrine's guidance he explores a side of himself that he never knew existed. Asa Butterfield plays Jake the main character, and he did an excellent job and has grown up so much since being young Mordred in the British series Merlin. He was exceptional with his young, albeit rather flat character. Eva Green as Miss Peregrine was in my opinion the best part of the entire film, but I have to admit that I am highly biased when it comes to her. Her character was mysterious, fascinating, cool and highly complex; like there is something more to her than meets the eye, and I wish that they would have spent more time focusing on her and developing her character more. Ella Purnell who played Emma Bloom was essentially Mr. Butterfield's "love interest" did a lovely job, but her character was also rather flat, but pleasant and enjoyable. Samuel L. Jackson plays the villain of the film, Barron, and for some odd reason they chose him rather than somebody else who might have been a far better fit. A lot of directors do that with Sam Jackson; they just have him in the film to....well....have him in the film even if it doesn't necessarily make sense. For some odd reason Judi Dench had a rather highly irrelevant role which I wouldn't classify as a cameo, but it really felt that way; not certain why a woman of her caliber would take such a role, but I'm certain she has her reasons. Terrence Stamp had a lovely role as Jake's grandfather, and Rupert Everett had a delightful cameo role as well, along with Allison Janney. The individuals who made up the cast of the children were also quite good, and it was really awesome to see Milo Parker from Mr. Holmes as one of the young actors. All in all a pretty decent cast.
There may be some disagreement about Tm Burton's directing abilities considering the film was not much of a success, at least based on how much money it made in comparison to how much it cost to create and market. I believe he did a fairly good job, although things did come across as a little scatterbrained at times and not necessarily quite fluid considering the subject matter of the story and plot. Apparently the screenplay written by Jane Goldman is based upon a book by Ransom Riggs, which is a very fascinating concept and I think that I shall get around to reading the books. The music by Michael Higham and Matthew Margeson was good from what I can remember but nothing really extraordinarily good or memorable. Special effects were relatively good as was the action, even though this is more of an adventure story than action film. The cinematography by Bruno Delbonnel was quite good, and the set design was especially good; something that Tim Burton always seems to nail. And of course Colleen Atwood did the costume design which was marvelous as always; she is quite incredible at her job. I have to say that I really enjoyed the film. It wasn't amazing, and at times was rather disgusting and disturbing, but I liked it a lot and will definitely end up watching again in the future. It's more of a family film for older children not so much younger children, and it is dark, but still good like all of the great Gothic fairy tale stories. Definitely recommend this one. Well in regards to world events and news, this weekend in the United States of America is going to be one to remember no matter what you're perspective. Hopefully everything anyone says or does will be done in a respectful and safe manner in the spirit of democratic freedom and courteous, polite attitudes. If not...well....things will definitely get interesting. May the Force be with us all.
The Peculiar Children
Eva Green on Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children
(looks interesting despite the fact that they got the psychiatry totally wrong)
I find myself finally catching up with all of the writing and film reviews that should have been completed last month; perhaps it is the cold weather? Fantastic Beasts: And Where to Find Them is a new way for Warner Brothers' studio to keep the Harry Potter franchise relevant to keep bringing in the cash, of which it was rather successful. It was a fairly entertaining film with a lot of magic, so perfect for families and younger audiences, and tolerable for those who are older. It was okay, but honestly it came off rather weak for me. Ironically it suffered from a similar problem, in my opinion, that Rogue One suffered from. I think there is something that big "blockbuster" filmmakers are forgetting, and that is it was simplicity and small/focus that made a lot of blockbuster films very successful and enduring (Alien, Star Wars, Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Terminator, and The Fellowship of the Ring).
So the story of this film is basically this wizard, Newt Scamander, is traveling through New York City to deliver a specific animal to Arizona when the several of the creatures in his suitcase menagerie get loose and he has to round them up. Add to that a side story of anti-magic sentiment in the US (probably mirroring something akin to racism that was actually happening; J.K. Rowling is losing her subtlety regarding how she conveys her themes, messages and topics. This film was rather preachy), with some sort of "creature" running around killing people and causing a wreck of the city. Voila! Eddie Redmayne as always was perfect; the man can act like no other, and he brought to life Newt Scamander in a heartwarming and charming manner, but also brought humor to the role as well. Dan Fogler as Mr. Kowalski was a muggle or "nomage" (how they describe a non-magic person in America apparently) and he was also charming and funny, but his character came off as more of a prop used by Newt and his magical associates than being able to stand on his own as a unique purposeful character. Katherine Waterston who played Tina and was the other lead to the film came off as wooden, boring, preachy, and had extraordinarily poor chemistry with Mr. Redmayne. Perhaps it was her character, perhaps it was the writing, or perhaps she just delivered a fairly bad performance; all are equally possible, and quite possibly all are probable. Alison Sudol who played her sister, Queenie, suffered from the same problem, although I'm not even certain what the point of her character was except that she romantically falls for Mr. Kowalski. Those four are the main actors on screen. Colin Farrell plays a small but significant role as Mr. Graves, who is some big shot at the local ministry of magical law enforcement and does fine, boring character but it works out in the end. Jon Voight has a small role as a media mogul and is atypical of that time period. Ron Perlman has a small role as a goblin gangster, which was odd seeing a goblin speak with a Brooklyn accent and smoking a cigar, and I'm still not certain if it worked. And then Johnny Depp had a brief appearance as Gellert Grindelwald, of which he will return in the series and I'm assuming Dumbledore will also appear at some point. What was missing from this film which was present in all of the original Harry Potter films was the stellar British acting talent, but I guess you can't have everything.
David Yates directed the film, and he directed Harry Potter films: 5, 6, 7 pt.1, & 7 pt.2. From what I hear he's going to direct all remaining four Fantastic Beasts films, but we'll see how that goes even though he is off to a successful start (at least fiscally). I think they needed someone fresh to the world to give it a new feel and look, like Guillermo del Toro, or bring back Alfonso Cuaron, but they've stuck with him for some odd reason. J.K. Rowling should stick to writing books, and leave screenplays alone; it wasn't an atrocious screenplay, but it wasn't nearly as good as any of the previous Harry Potter franchise films. James Newton Howard composed the music, and it wasn't half bad, but it doesn't compare to the work John Williams did with The Sorcerer's Stone or Prisoner of Azkaban, or what Patrick Doyle did with The Goblet of Fire, or what Nicholas Hooper did with The Order of the Phoenix and The Half-Blood Prince. If anything he's on par, perhaps even better with what Alexandre Desplat did on The Deathly Hallows 1 & 2. I wasn't impressed with the cinematography or costume design at all really. The action sequences were negligible also, so the technical elements of the film weren't even that impressive. Aside from Eddie Redmayne, his cast of magical creatures were perhaps the best parts of the film; they were empathetic, funny, dark, and quite complex for CGI.
I felt the film was essentially flat; not really that good, and not really that bad. It was entertaining enough, but suffered from a slight problem of having too much going on all at once. The story should have been more focused on Newt and his newfound friends, but then the film would follow this other story line of a tortured boy and his family preaching the evils of magic. Also, unlike in Harry Potter where audiences were slowly shown how cool magic can be to being dazzled by the end of series, right off the start in this film people are bombarded by magic, so it quickly looses its "coolness" factor and becomes commonplace unfortunately. So Warner Brothers Studio threw money at David Yates and the production and they went all out and I think that is what nailed them, in my opinion. If you think back to the original Harry Potter film, it was far more simpler than this film, and I think that made it much more enjoyable. I will probably watch it again and all of the future films, and I'm sure they'll all be entertaining. I doubt however if any of them will possess that magical sparkle that fired an entire generation's imagination with the original Harry Potter franchise.
Well, Happy New Years everyone....albeit 16 days late. So I did see Rogue One back in Late December with my family while visiting for Christmas, and yes I might be in the minority once again with my perspective on Star Wars films post George Lucas, but I did enjoy and like the film better than The Force Awakens. So I had high expectations going into this film, and perhaps that was not a good thing, as I didn't think it was a great Star Wars film.
The plot is about how the Rebels steal the death star plans to the first Imperial battle station, and all of the various characters that were a part of that endeavor. Felicity Jones plays Jyn Erso, the main character of the film. She is the daughter of one of the designers of the Death Star, and has sort of sailed the galaxy causing trouble after she was removed from her parents. Ms. Jones does a pretty good job with the character most of the time, but she ran into a problem that most of the characters ran into, Diego Luna played Cassian Andor, a very interesting and fascinating character that was a rebel commando captain of sorts from what I could gather. He was one character that more depth or focus on would have been great. Alan Tudyk played a droid K-2SO, and was single handedly the one of the best parts of the film. Humorous, clever, and interesting; he had all of the elements of a great character, but once again suffered a flaw. Donnie Yen played the blind man who was a Jedi wannabe, and Wen Jiang played Baze Malbus who protected him. Both were completely irrelevant and shouldn't have even been in the film at all. Ben Mendelsohn played Director Orson Krennic, and he was indeed my favorite character. He had the look, the command, relatively good dialog and story, but he should have been the primary and only villain. Darth Vader and Grand Moff Tarkin crowded him out of the top spot, and his ending wasn't really that great. Forest Whitaker as Saw Garrera was another pointless character that shouldn't have been in the film, although they could have re-worked his character to make it better. Riz Ahmed as Bodhi Rook (the defecting Imperial pilot) was another pointless character unfortunately. Mads Mikkelsen (Galen Erso), Jimmy Smits (Bail Organa), and Genevieve O'Reilly (Mon Mothma) were all fantastic to see in the film and did amazing jobs, although it would have been nice to see more of them, and perhaps see the Imperial Senate at work rather than just hear about it.
The major problem of this film was it had too many characters at the forefront all vying for screen time which made it all come across rather weak and pointless at times. It was all entertaining, but not necessarily put together the best possible way. Gareth Edwards did great as a director with Godzilla (2014 version) and I thought he would knock it out of the park with this film, but not really. The screenplay was mediocre at best, which was written by Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy; it could have been much better. Michael Giacchino disappointed me greatly with his score for the film. I thought he would be a perfect fit and channel the creative might of John Williams, but the score for the most part is just a cacophony of brass with no really notable themes or motifs, which is an insult to Star Wars as a great score is highly important for any film in the franchise. The cinematography by Greig Fraser was pretty good at capturing the grittiness of the young rebellion, and the imperiousness of the Galactic Empire. The costume design was amazing, and I have to say that the Death Troopers and Director Krennic's outfits took home the gold for me, which were done by David Crossman and Glyn Dillon. The special effects by Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) were incredibly impressive, and notably bringing Governor Tarkin and a young Princess Leia to life will forever be burnished in people's memories. The 3-D was negligible, I don't even remember anything impressive about the fact that it was in that format. The action of the film was mediocre; nothing really overly cool or exciting really, or even new and dynamic, aside from seeing Darth Vader brandishing his lightsaber.
In essence, Rogue One was a commercial success for Disney, and thus many more films relating to Star Wars will be made until they have sucked the very life out of it. Oh, by the way, the ending of the film sucked; I'm not a fan of everyone dying, literally. It was like watching the Titanic sink. Once again, I will be in the minority when I write this, but I believe the single element that is missing that would have made this film and The Force Awakens great is George Lucas. Now maybe not at the director's helm, but definitely as executive producer and story writer and have someone else direct but have it be his vision. He created Star Wars, and thus he is the only person who knows what characterizes the franchise and what does not, although there might be one other individual who has that ability as he was trained by George (Dave Filoni). It should be interesting to see how the next 2 "saga" films are like and then the subsequent "anthology" films. In regards to news and what not happening in the world currently, I think everyone should gird themselves and prepare for a very interesting year. If there is one thing an enemy loves seeing in it's foe, it is chaos and seeing them divided rather than unified; and I assure you that is something that will be taken advantage of unless the citizens of the United States of America come together and push on as one. God protect us all.
How Tarkin and Princess Leia were created for Rogue One
As of late I am beginning to notice a pattern about films lately I have been watching. If I have high expectations, or just expectations and the film doesn't meet them it's rather dreadful oftentimes. However, if I have no expectations or low expectations and the film is essentially just "okay" then I tend to like it more often than not. The Huntsman: Winter's War fits into that latter category. I remember watching the trailer and thinking to myself that the movie was going to be terrible, despite having a lot of good material to work with. Now granted there are some flaws with the film, but overall I rather enjoyed it. The biggest saving grace of the film is that Kristen Stewart is nowhere to be found in it, so right away the film began on the right track. The casting of this film was epic though, and is probably was kept it from falling into total disaster. Of course we have Thor...I mean Chris Hemsworth playing the Huntsman Eric, and he actually brought some interesting depth and lightness to the character that didn't really exist in Snow White and The Huntsman, and even his character's behavior in that previous film was explained a little in this sequel of sorts. He did a good job with his character, but it wasn't anything extraordinarily impressive. Jessica Chastain was the Hunstswoman Sara the love interest of Eric, and the two of them had relatively good chemistry, and Ms. Chastain did much better with her character than Mr. Hemsworth did with his, although more depth of her character would have been better. Nick Frost and Rob Brydon as the dwarf characters Nion and Gryff provided the "comic" relief, although I figured they often came off as obnoxious and unnecessary, but it wasn't a huge distraction. The two female dwarfs Doreena and Mrs. Bromwyn played by Sheridan Smith and Alexandra Roach were a foil to the two male dwarfs and were alright, but rather unnecessary for the story or plot really. There were times though that the four of them together were rather humorous, but rather forgettable. I saved the best for last though. Charlize Theron as Ravenna is as perfect as it gets; lethality and beauty and never looked so good. Emily Blunt as Ravenna's sister Queen Freya was genius; cold and distant, powerful yet empathetic with a touch of monstrous evil. The film should have been predominantly about these two and it would have been a smash hit success; both had fascinating back stories, and what a dynamic it would have been with both fighting each other for dominance or something like that. Oh well, maybe next time. Liam Neeson made an excellent narrator, Colin Morgan (played Merlin) briefly appeared, Sam Claflin also briefly reprised his character of Prince William which might have been the worst acting in the entire film.
The director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan did a relatively good job with his first major Hollywood motion picture, and I don't think the fault laid entirely with him. The writing was largest source of any problem for the film. The story needed a major overhaul, and the screenplay needed a little more polishing so I can't really say much for the writers Evan Spiliotopoulos (who somehow wrote the screenplay for the upcoming live action Beauty and the Beast) and Craig Mazin. The premise of the story was fantastic, but the execution of that idea wasn't really fleshed out that well. James Newton Howard composed the music and I found it rather disappointing as fantasy tends to be his area of expertise and experience, but I can't say that I can recall a single note. It is also unfortunate that he tends to be a rather mediocre film composer; I don't think he's ever had a smash hit score that's really resonated on it's own apart from the film. The action in the film was pretty good, but it wasn't until the end that it became very cool and impressive, mainly because it revolved two of my favorite characters in the film. All in all the film was pretty good for not being panned as very good, and aside from Charlize Theron in Snow White and the Huntsman it is far better than it's predecessor. Hopefully they'll take my idea and run well with it for the next film in the series, if they decide to make another one.
The Huntsman: Winter's War The 2 Queens Clip
The Huntsman: Winter's War goblins clip
The Mummy teaser (not sure about this one as Tom Cruise is in it, but I might be pleasantly surprised yet again).
The classic Walt Disney animated film The Jungle Book was the last film Walt was involved in before his unfortunate death which left the studio's animated film legacy with chaotic void which wouldn't be filled again until The Little Mermaid. Now this live action film of the same story from this year deviates ever so slightly from the animated tale here and there, but the heart of it stays true to the original story. So Mowgli grows up with the wolves in the jungle, and Shere Khan the tiger desires nothing more than to kill the little "man cub." Thus he decides to leave the wolves, and Bagheera helps him find his way towards the man village, although there are stops along the way. Neel Sethi played Mowgli and did a very good job with a rather static character who is very young, and breathed some character growth into the role he played. Ben Kingsley as Bagheera was absolutely perfect; he sounded firm but with such calm and cool ageless wisdom as one would think a panther would possess. Bill Murray as Baloo was also perfect, such a great performance where he was funny, serious, intelligent, and of course humorous again. I almost wish he had been in the original, but that Baloo was perfect for that film. Idris Elba can play heroes, villains, adventurers, deep dramatic roles; this man is truly a talented individual with great depth in regards to his craft, and so of course his take on Shere Khan was fantastic! Lupita Nyong'o as Rakasha (Mowgli's wolf mother) was good, albeit rather static, but that wasn't really her fault. Scarlett Johansson as Kaa was surprisingly good despite the fact that originally it was a male character, but there is something extraordinarily hypnotic about her vocal performance which captured the character right on; definitely a good casting decision (even though I'm certain my sisters would disagree with me). Which leaves the great Christopher Walken as King Louie, and that of course needs no further elaboration. A most excellent cast was assembled, but let's not forget that these individuals were only half of the performance; the rest of performance needs to be credited to all of the extraordinarily talented special effects and animation experts who worked tirelessly to create such realistic and exceptional performances of all the characters these actors and actresses voiced. I take my hat off to them, for without their skills and talents this film would not have been possible.
Yes I very much enjoyed the film, and it was quite brilliant. Not only was director Jon Favreau able to capture the fun and enjoyment of the original animated classic, but he was also able to sweep up the beauty and deep mystical nature of Rudyard Kipling's writings. Justin Marks wrote the screenplay, and while the story and characters were further elaborated on and changed here and there, it was done tastefully and skillfully which is no easy task especially in Hollywood these days (as excellent writing seems more scarce than bountiful). But perhaps the star of the entire film was the exquisite cinematography by Bill Pope. All I have to really say is wow! The film was shot and it came out so stunning and breathtaking with all of the vistas, intimate shadows, and the darkest moments of the story. This is was definitely brought the film to such vivid life. John Debney composed the music, and he did a fair job at adapting the original score and then adding his own, and it wasn't too bad, but it wasn't that good either. My favorite part of the music was played during the credits with Scarlet Johannson singing "Trust In Me." I wasn't particularly fond of Bill Murray and Christopher Walken singing, but it seemed to work well in the film and the characters as well. I highly recommend this film, and the beautiful thing is you can watch it as a family, as a date film, with your parents and grandparents, and friends; Jon Favreau really did an impressive job breathing new life into this classic Disney story, although I'm not quite certain if he'll be able to duplicate his success with the apparent planned sequel. Disney and their sequel mania, it is quite ridiculous. Oh, by the way I will take this opportunity to state that freedom for people in Cuba and around the world scored a huge victory with the death of dictator Fidel Castro of Cuba. He was a brutal man, who ruled with an iron fist and was responsible for killing thousands and destroying the lives of millions over a span of 57 years. He will not be missed, and I have very little doubt that he will be paying for his butchery for the remainder of eternity. You see, finally some good news to report. :)
The Jungle Book intro to Shere Khan
The Jungle Book Cast Feature
Emerald City television show trailer (looks.....interesting maybe?)
I'm not a comic book fan, but from what I understand there are a lot of them published with several heroes, villains, sidekicks and secondary characters alike. Are all of them eventually going to get transformed into films or television shows? Where will it stop, or rather when will it hit a wall? Now, X-Men: Days of Future Past was a very good comic book film, and perhaps the best of the X-Men films thus far. X-Men: Apocalypse was okay; not really bad, but not really that good either. Too much honestly was going on so that the story wasn't focused enough, and none of the characters really had chances to develop because the film was literally going here, there and everywhere. So the plot is easy, the super-mutant (the original) Apocalypse comes back to life and seeks four partners to help him eradicate human existence to rebuild it with him commanding it all, and of course the "X-Men" are there to stop him as he does it, and they also have their own story lines and drama going on along the way. James McAvoy as Professor X was fine; nothing really new with him, although we see apparently why he goes bald in this film. Michael Fassbender as Magneto in this film was definitely a much more different approach than I had thought, and I'm not certain if I like where they went with his character, but he felt like an afterthought in the film as a character. Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique was good, although I found her a little too preachy at times, and she also felt like an afterthought. Nicholas Hoult as Hank McCoy was fantastic of course, but they didn't really do much with his character unfortunately. Perhaps the best performance and most interesting character of the entire film was Apocalypse portrayed by the very talented Oscar Isaac. Subtle things here and there in his performance, and he was very strong in his presentation. Rose Byrne came back as Moira Mactaggert, which was nice because she is an excellent character and actress, but her character was fairly useless so I don't know why she was inserted into the story. Perhaps the newer additions of Sophie Turner as Jean Grey and Tye Sheridan as Cyclops were some of the other really good casting bright spots, although it would have been great to see their characters developed a lot more than they were. Then there were the characters: Evan Peters as Quicksilver, Lucas Till as Havok, Kodi Smit-McPhee as Nightcrawler, Ben Hardy as Angel, Alexandra Shipp as Storm, Josh Helman as Col. Stryker, and Olivia Muun as Psylocke. With 15 characters all vying for a chunk of screentime, many of whom are major characters, this was the primary cause of the weakness of the film.
Bryan Singer is one of my favorite directors, and he is actually quite skilled at what he does most of the time, and granted where he went with this film and how me directed it wasn't atrocious, but it did lack a cohesive fluidity to it, which is unusual for him. Simon Kinberg, the skilled screenwriter, story writer, and producer that he is this film was definitely not up to his usual par. John Ottman as both film editor and music composer excelled with the music and didn't do so well with the editing of the film, which was really choppy in how it was cut together. The music was really good, especially at the beginning; definitely memorable. The action was pretty dynamic and exhilarating most of the time, although I don't think they used everyone's powers to their fullest extent. All in the all the film was entertaining, and I'd watch it again. The beginning of the film which shows what happened to Apocalypse and his four followers was perhaps the best sequence of the entire film, with maybe the climactic end battle being a close second. If there had been a sharper screenplay, and a more focused story with fewer, or a narrower cast then the film would have been so much better. Better luck next time I guess, at least according to the end credits scene. It's a fun film to watch, but you aren't missing out if you never see it. I hope everyone has an excellent Thanksgiving holiday! Despite all of the dreadful and horrifying things that occur daily in life, there will always be much to be thankful for.
Okay, I prefer Star Wars over Star Trek anytime, but I did grow up with it since my father liked it, and I enjoy it too. I have seen all of the films and series (except all of the original show), and I have to say overall that J.J. Abrams strategy of breathing new life into the franchise isn't going all that well in my opinion. And yes I did not like Star TrekBeyond. Honestly, the entire film was completely bland. So the crew of the Enterprise has been in deep space doing...whatever they do, exploring I suppose, and I guess it's really bothering them, or Captain Kirk, it wasn't really that clear. Then the film becomes even more spotty as they take the starship on a supposed rescue mission and get completely annihilated in the progress by some sort of hive culture that's after a specific object. After crash landing on the planet the crew then has to survive and get back to....well, I think it was the Federation, or more specifically one of their starbases. That's the plot in a quick summary. So, Chris Pine as Captain Kirk was pretty flat and static in this film, although it seemed like they were attempting to grow his character, but it didn't work out that well. Zachary Quinto as Spock also came across as flat and static despite attempts to grow his character as well; Kirk and Spock's friendship has nowhere the same or even similar chemistry that Nimoy and Shatner had with the same characters. Karl Urban as Bones was the same as it had been in the first two films; he does a good job, but he seems a little too angry all of the time, and it's kind of getting annoying. Zoe Saldana as Uhura was similarly bland and static despite attempts to also grow her character, which was probably at its best in the first film in her first couple of scenes. This was actually I thought Simon Pegg's best film as Scotty thus far; he really has adapted himself to the character very well, though his character is rather static. John Cho as Sulu seemed older and wiser; perhaps that has something to do with him being married with a child. But his character unfortunately didn't have much done with it. Anton Yelchin as Checkov was fine in his last performance of the character since his death will be preventing him from any future role with this character; I don't know if they will replace him or simply kill off the character. Since it is an alternative universe, why not; should be interesting to see what kind of ripples it creates. The two new major additions to the film were Idris Elba as the villain Krall, and Sofia Boutella as Jaylah both of whom are very talented. Idris Elba as the villain could have been amazing, but honestly he sucked as a villain, but they tried very hard to give him a plausible backstory so that the audience would feel some empathy for him, I think it backfired though. Jaylah could have been a great character, but it seemed as if she was tossed in just for the sake of a new character with no real idea of what to do with her; a lot of potential, but really fell flat.
So this ranks as one of the worst Star Trek films ever up there with Nemesis, The Final Frontier, and The Motion Picture. Justin Lin as the director was not a good choice whatsoever, and having Simon Pegg and Doug Jung writing the screenplay were also bad ideas. Those three choices were most likely why the film was quite bad. There also seems to be in the newer Star Trek films this slapstick, silly kind of comedy that seems to permeate every moment, which was never in any of the previous films in such an obvious manner. The films don't take themselves seriously and hence neither do the people who watch them. The other thing is that there has never been a single Star Trek film that has been a box-office smash; Into Darkness is the one Star Trek film that has made the most money, and it didn't even break $500 million in total box-office receipts. So I'm curious to see if this franchise can ever soar like Star Wars or comic book based films. Also it would be nice to see a full out war involving the Klingons, Romulans, Federation, and perhaps Tholians, Gorn, or something new. Anyways. Special effects were good, and the cinematography okay, as was the costume design, although truth be told they have been wearing essentially the same costumes for three films. The action sequences were mostly boring with a few good moments here and there. Michael Giacchino had a rather disappointing score as it sounded very similar to the last two in so many ways; no really good new themes or motifs. All in all, it was just a bland film, not terrible, but not really that good either. Don't fret if you never see it, or never see it again; you really won't be missing anything.
Star Trek scene Scotty & Jaylah meet
Simon Pegg on writing Star Trek Beyond
A Series of Unfortunate Events preview (looks great!)
Sorry, I couldn't help myself by quoting an old line from a kids animated show I grew up with back in the late 1990's, The Mummies Alive. Anywho. So last night I sat down to watch Gods of Egypt, which when I first saw the preview a while back I thought that it had a lot of potential, but did seem a little over the top with perhaps not the best casting decisions. However, aside from all of that it was a rather entertaining film that wasn't all that bad. Granted, it's not Oscar award winning (except perhaps for the special effects and costume design), but it wasn't as bad as some "critically acclaimed" films that I've seen recently. It also might have something to do with the fact that I find Egyptian antiquity extraordinarily fascinating along with their mythology, and I don't think a film has ever delved into their gods and goddesses like the Greeks, so it was something fresh. The film basically follows the god Horus as he gets revenge on Set for killing his father, taking his eyes, and then his crown as king of Egypt. A human mortal, Bek, assists Horus against Set so he can free his beloved from the afterlife and on they go. Aside from the dialog, and some of how the characters were written, I didn't have a huge problem with the writing, but the casting certainly wasn't ideal. Brenten Thwaites as Bek was pretty good....even though he didn't sound or really look Egyptian, which in a film about gods and demons may not be exactly necessary, but it would have given the film a better edge I think personally. He was funny, interesting, and had some good potential for deeper character development, but that specific arc was given to Horus. Nikolaj Coster-Waldau as Horus (plays Jaime Lannister in Game of Thrones) did a good job with the character he was given, and aside from some bad dialog he did fine. I however, don't think that a man born in Denmark should have played one of the most powerful gods of ancient Egypt; there was something that just didn't seem to fit. But it wasn't atrocious. Perhaps the worst casting decision was Gerard Butler as Set; that just didn't work for me. His look, his voice, and although he tried his best to hide his Scottish accent I could just hear it constantly every time he spoke, and he played the character a little too playfully. Elodie Yung as Hathor the love interest of Horus, was a good decision, although I would have liked to have seen her character explored much more as she was one of the more interesting characters. Chadwick Boseman (played the Black Panther in Captain America: Civil War) as Thoth could have been good, as the man is very talented, but I didn't like how they made the character sound especially which was very British like, and he came off a little too Victorian like with manners, gestures, and his overall presentation of himself. Geoffrey Rush as Ra was very cool, and although I'm certain the Egyptians probably didn't imagine him as presented as a British actor, his time in the film was very cool and very well done....I do have to say that I am very biased towards this man though. The remainder of the cast was okay, but very British heavy; some more actors and actresses native to Africa would have enriched the experience of the film so much more.
So as I mentioned above, the film wasn't great, but it was good; I definitely would watch it again, and the more I think of it, the movie was really fun. The writing wasn't the best, but it wasn't dreadful; the plot however was very well done, how they progressed that along. If they had worked a little bit more on the casting and writing this would have been a phenomenal film. There is a lot of cool action in this film, at least I thought there was. There were times when some of the action was a little much, and things could have been slower paced, but I don't think that's what the films' creators were going for. Marco Beltrami did the music and I actually like him a lot as a film composer, and this score was pretty good but nothing stands out musically except some choral pieces during some of the fight sequences. The special effects for the most part were pretty good, and I think they'll probably be nominated for an Oscar at least. The art direction was also an excellent technical element within the film, and the ancient setting gave that a rich background, along with the cinematography. And then of course the costume design was pretty amazing, although what Osiris and Horus wore as kings wasn't very kingly looking in my opinion. All in all a very enjoyable film, and although it bombed miserably at the box office in the USA, it did fairly well overseas, and yes I liked and enjoyed it enough to watch it again. Some good old fantasy is what this world needs right now to distract itself from its problems. So switching gears a little bit. Last week depending on your perspective was either a good newsweek or a very bad newsweek. Donald Trump will be the 45 President of the United States of America, and the first US president with that first name. Did you know that "James" is the most used Presidential name with 6 US presidents with that name, more than any other singular name. I think John, William, Franklin and George were the other names that popped up multiple times for US presidents. Regardless, should be interesting to see where it all goes. I shall quote some Shakespeare, who as Klingon General Chang stated was one of Earth's greatest warrior poets....
"What's past is prologue...." and "...Security is mortal's chiefest enemy..."
Gods of Egypt trailer
Gods of Egypt interviews
The Animaniacs on the US presidents (such a great show, and humor is good for the soul. It's on Netflix FYI).
"Remember, remember the fifth of November, the gunpowder treason and plot; I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot." -V
Yes indeed it is that time of year again; Guy Fawkes Day. The time of year when I watch the film V for Vendetta and remember that it is the people of a democracy that hold the ultimate control and fate of their country, not the elected government. It's interesting to consider that in a true modern democracy people surrender their power and control to a group of individuals, and then hope or naively expect that power to never be used against them. The more I consider that, it almost seems rather ludicrous; no wonder, at least in the United States of America, trust in the federal government is at an all time low. Three days from today, the people of the USA will choose a new president, and decide their representatives and other government leaders for the next couple of years. I believe one key philosophic idea that everyone should take away despite who wins and loses is to remember ultimately that it is the people not the government that have the true power in an elected democracy. And in this very unusual election cycle in the USA , I believe we have seen what the power of the people can accomplish, especially when they are incited, motivated, and angry. Whatever happens, it will definitely be quite an interesting day, and the days that will follow will be even more interesting. One thing that I would like to see are more countries, more people being allowed the possibilities of electing and shaping their own government and civilization freely. Countries such as: China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Egypt, Turkey, Venezuela, Belarus, Syria, Burma, Thailand, and Vietnam that are either outright repressive or are slowly eliminating their people's civil liberties. Granted, in several if not most of the countries I named, democracy is a foreign concept unfortunately as men with power like to keep their power and oftentimes do whatever it takes to keep it from falling into the hands of the "masses." I don't know how in some countries sparks of rebellion and freedom spread to oust the established status quo and a stable democracy forms, and then there are times when the rebellions are absolutely crushed such as in China and Iran and it seems the spirit of democracy withers away. Perhaps what V for Vendetta gives me is hope; hope that if a day should come when the US government becomes tyrannical that I have the courage and the strength to stand up to it, or any other government that lords over their citizens in an egregious way. I always like to remind people that a politician's favorite kind of people are dumb, uneducated, clueless, and selfish. So, please stay aware of what is going on around you, your country, and in the world and people will be less likely to pull any wool over your eyes.
V's Speech to the People
Series of Unfortunate Evens teaser (looks very good)
I'm not certain what they did on Halloween night 1000 years ago, but I don't think it involved children going from home to home asking for candy. But, I think modern trick-or-treating on Halloween is far better than...well whatever they did a thousand years ago. So have fun, stay safe, and apparently watch out for crazy people dressed as clowns. For some odd reason I have been selecting a lot of boring films lately, and I think I could translate that into them being quite dreadful as well. Last night I watched Carol a drama film that takes place back in the 1950's in New York City about two women who fall in love with each other, and how they navigate their lives with this relationship during that time period. Cate Blanchett plays the title character Carol Aird, who is a divorced woman with a young daughter and an angry, possessive, brooding ex-husband. She is relatively high society, or at least wealthy, but comes across as gentle, kind and compassionate. Ms. Blanchett gave a fine performance, although I don't think it was worthy of the Oscar nomination she received; and I have to say that I didn't care for her character, which I also thought of as quite boring and flat throughout most of the entire film. It was only at the end that there was some energy put into the performance. Rooney Mara plays the young lover, Therese Belivet; and wow what a dull character, and what a dull performance. Throughout the entire film she bored me constantly, and her character was flat; there was nothing even remotely good about this character, yet somehow she too received an Oscar nomination somehow.
The film was primarily these two the entire time. Kyle Chandler played the obnoxious, jealous and possessive ex-husband, Harge, but his character was static the entire time save for a brief ten seconds or so. The rest of the cast was unremarkable. In short the film was beyond dreadful, and beyond boring; two hours of nothing really going on, and the irritating thing was none of the performances were even interesting let alone good. Even more astounding was that the screenplay, written by Phyllis Nagy, received an Oscar nomination which boggles my mind, because the writing was boring, flat, predictable, and there was no life in the characters or the dialog. Carter Burwell somehow received an Oscar nomination for Best Original Score for his film score, which it wasn't dreadful, but....it wasn't anything even remotely good. Sounded like he borrowed his musical notes from Alexandre Desplat and just re-orchestrated them for this film. Perhaps the only place where the film shined was in the cinematography by Edward Lachman (which was nominated for an Oscar) and costume design by Sandy Powell (also nominated for an Oscar), but other than that, I can't recall anything pleasant or good about this film, even the ending was quite dreadful. I do not recommend this film whatsoever, unless you want something to put you to sleep or out of your misery. There is nothing compelling in this story, and honestly there was so much they could have done with this film, but it was so sedate and....well, simply put it will bore you to death. For good Halloween viewing watch the classic Hollywood horror films like The Mummy from 1932 with Boris Karloff, The Invisible Man from 1933 with Claude Rains, or Dracula from 1931 with Bela Lugosi, and The Horror of Dracula from 1958 with Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.
I think I can speak for the average, majority of Americans when I say...thank God that November 8th is almost here, and will soon be behind us....hopefully. Just as usual there isn't really a lot of good news being reported in the world, but I'm sure peppered throughout the world that there are decent, lovely people who are keeping the world from becoming totally dark. God bless them, and hopefully their numbers grow rather than shrink. So recently I watched this science fiction film Ex Machina after having it on my list for quite some time. When I first noted its release, I didn't feel that enthused about seeing it, and after watching the film now I know why I wasn't. It was extraordinarily boring for basically all 1hr and 50min of the running time. For some odd reason it was nominated for an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, and who knows why as the writing wasn't that good. The story is basically this employee of a technology company goes and stays with the CEO of the company for a week to work and test on this robot to improve her artificial intelligence capabilities to make her more believably human. However, he begins to develop emotional feelings for the robotic woman, who is more complex than she lets on, or the CEO who designed her. The cast for this film was top notch, although their characters were rather boring, and not fleshed out quite well. Domhnall Gleeson plays the lead character, Caleb, who is the employee that assists the CEO. I thought he was completely miscast, and that actually may have been one of the death knells to the film for me. There were brief moments when his performance of the character was quite remarkable, but most of the time it was dull; also, his character was rather bland to begin with anyways, so he didn't have much to work with. Oscar Isaac played the CEO, Nathan, who was also a rather bland character and although the performance was better than Gleeson's, it wasn't better by much unfortunately. I found his character not compelling at all, or likable to any degree, yet his character had a lot to work with. Alicia Vikander played the robotic Ava, and she was perhaps the best, most compelling, and most interesting character in the film, but all of this wasn't effectively utilized at all in the writing or during many of the scenes. She had the best performance in my opinion, but once again she wasn't allowed to blossom that much. The film was pretty much only those three characters, so that might have something to do with why I disliked it so.
Alex Garland, who wrote and directed the film did a rather atrocious job putting all the pieces of the film together, but the concept behind the film was truly remarkable; he just didn't deliver. The editing also fell through really poorly I thought, and may have been another gigantic reason why the film was so boring; the pacing was very slow and choppy. The music was blandly ethereal with no good emotional anchors to help you fall in love with the characters, or feel what they were feeling. Perhaps the one good thing from the film was the cinematography by Rob Hardy; it was intimate, yet dynamic and edgy at times. The visual effects won an Oscar, which were good, I just don't think that they were that good. All in all, if you never watch it then you aren't missing a thing. I definitely do not recommend this film, even as a film experience unless you want to know what not to do if you make your own science fiction story or film. Well, even though 2017 isn't here yet, I hope that things get better after it starts out as one of the determining factors to a degree is just around the corner. May the Force be with us all.
After sitting on my television for quite some time, I finally watched the film Sicario. This is the synopsis of the film in a nutshell an idealistic FBI agent is enlisted by a government task force to assists in the escalating war against drugs at the border between the U.S.A. and Mexico. I visited El Paso quite a bit within the last year visiting my sister and nieces, which of course is right next to Ciudad Juarez; quite a bit of the film takes place around this area. It was definitely something being that close to one of the most dangerous cities in the world, and if the movie is even a small fraction accurate with its depiction then it is definitely not a place I would ever care to visit without some impervious shield/force field. Emily Blunt played the lead idealistic FBI agent, and she did a good job playing the straight arrow, although it didn't seem natural for her; it seemed very forced and not executed well, and she was the only one with whom it was like that. Benicio Del Toro was utter perfection in this film. Calm, cool, mysterious, and excellently executed; this is another film that showcases how well the man can act...but I also really liked his character as well. Josh Brolin pretty much played himself; satirical, humorous, but with a slight edge of seriousness to lighten the rather dark film up a little. Victor Garber had a nice little supporting role as Emily Blunt's boss/supervisor, but it wasn't anything very outstanding.
The film is quite slow, and it reminds me of something more of a technical feature with a lot of emphasis on the cinematography, visuals and music than having the dialog carry the scenes, although there were also times when the action carried the scenes, but that was much later on in the film. I do not know much about the border war with drugs and the cartels, but I do know it is not a pretty picture. When a person comes between a person with no qualms who he or she kills or how and their source of income, be prepared for an unpleasant ending. I think oftentimes the public and public leaders of the world ignore the ugliness of these horrific actions until it hits close to home and affects their polling numbers or their source of income. I saw it frequently when I worked in mental health; no one wants to talk about, they just want it taken care of, and away from the public eye. In the film, there is a very gritty, realism approach about how to deal with drug cartel problem. This is led by the Brolin and Del Toro characters, but you have Emily Blunt pushing back barking that what they are doing isn't by the book. Del Toro has a good line he says to her "....you should move to a small town somwhere. You won't survive out here; this is now a land of wolves, and you are no wolf." Denis Villeneuve directed the film, and for the most part did quite well; it definitely felt quite real to me, but the screenplay could have used a whole lot more work. And honestly, I really think they should have gotten someone else to play Emily Blunt's character; she just didn't seem to really have it in her. The sound design was quite well done and the music by Johann Johannsson while not something you want to listen to on it's own, did such an amazing job of heightening the tension of the film. The film was nominated for three Academy Awards in Cinematography, Original Score, and Sound Editing. It isn't a happy go lucky film, and has a conflicted ending, so be forewarned, but it is a good film and I think I'd definitely watch it again. The beginning of the film will definitely get you hooked...quite literally. If you want a clear, and true picture about any issue, always talk to the people on the front lines and ignore the pundits, media, and public officials who sit comfortably in air conditioning behind desks (something else I learned working in mental health). There doesn't seem to be any really good news that I can find lately, and it seems as if the entire world is having a 1970's flashback from what I understand from the time. God help us all.