I don't remember the original Incredibles (2004) very well. In fact, I hardly remember anything about it, at all. That probably has something to do with the fact that I first and last watched it well over a decade ago. In hindsight, revisiting the first film before watching this sequel would have been wise… But since I effectively watched this movie with a fresh slate—both because of how long it had been since I saw the first movie, and because my film tastes have changed so much in the intervening years—I can judge this one on its own merits, without basing my opinion on (or making comparisons to) its predecessor.
So: Incredibles 2. It's… Pixar. That much is obvious. The animation style is unmistakable—and I don't just mean the visual design of everything. Pixar films have a certain quality to them in how things move, often manifested in physics that seem just slightly (or grossly) "wrong" for what you're actually seeing. Some people don't mind this (or even notice it, honestly), but it bugs me.
Obviously, in a movie about superheroes (or anthropomorphized emotions, or sentient toys, or…), things that can't happen in real life are going to happen. But stuff that's straight out of daily life, like cars driving around—that should be correct. Basic object physics should behave realistically, if only to avoid breaking immersion. I was pulled out of this movie more than a few times by some small thing, like a truck pulling out of its motel parking lot space too quickly.
Of course, it's hard to say whether the basic object physics in the film (we'll ignore anything involving powers) are objectively "wrong" without doing a bunch of math that I (frankly) avoided having to study in school, and don't want to start on now. But I like to think that I have enough experience with the world that I can trust my own feelings of "that's not how that works".
But I'm getting off into the weeds here. We all know that animation has certain common quirks, and one of those quirks is making objects behave slightly unrealistically for pacing or other reasons. As a reasonably avid anime viewer, and childhood fan of things like Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner cartoons, I'm well aware that animation doesn't have to follow the laws of physics to be believable.
Other things pulled me out as well, though. Still little things—like why, when Screenslaver's voice-over ended while Elastigirl was still tracking down "his" broadcast site, nobody in the television studio piped up. They were in the middle of an interview, after all. There should have been some chatter over the remote voice link. Details always get me.
Don't let my nitpicking dissuade you from seeing the film, though! I'm not the target audience, certainly—Pixar's films are mostly targeted at kids, and I eventually got around to watching this mostly because my 13-year-old nephew talked about it. (Plus, Pixar films are usually good for those times when you don't have the mental energy to watch something "made for adults". They're easy viewing.)
As usual, Pixar inserted some apt social commentary. Just as WALL·E (2008) made its points about corporate greed and consumerism to the adults while the kids enjoyed the space robots, Incredibles 2 had some thought-provoking words to say about technology and the role of television in our society for the adults to chew on while kids took in the superhero action. No one would accuse this movie of being anything but what it is—eye candy for kids with little tidbits to keep their parents from falling asleep—but it's always nice that PIxar does throw those tidbits in, often in ways that parents of older children can use to jump-start their own discussions if they want to.
Incredibles 2 is watchable. It's not amazing, but I enjoyed it well enough despite my nitpicks above.
Note to self, and anyone who's interested: It looks like this is available on YouTube at time of writing.
Is this a fun movie? Yes.
Does the script make sense? Kind of… not really.
Do the visual effects hold up in 2021? Not even close.
But the premise is interesting enough that I can see how it became a television franchise. That'll be next on my watchlist.
It's a real trip seeing James Spader in this goofy role.
It's some kind of accomplishment that Fran Drescher and Bill Cosby's characters were more compelling than Robin Williams' title role. Remember, he's supposed to be the (shooting) star.
I wish Williams had been a believable 10-year-old, but neither his performance nor the way his character was written made it work. And truthfully, nobody got good writing in this film. The comic bits weren't funny, and the dramatic moments (especially with Jack's parents) were absolutely cringe-worthy.
Once again, here I am in the aftermath of choosing a movie based on knowing nothing about it other than who some of the lead actors are—and once again, I find myself disappointed.
Spoiler-free summary: The Prestige is a compellingly-told story about two deeply unlikable magicians.
For Angier's part, his obsession is clearly unhealthy. Cutter tells him as much, as does Tesla. He appeared to be friendly with Borden before the incident, and I'm not sure his transformation into a revenge-obsessed Lord is believable. Of course his anger is believable, but where did he get such vast amounts of money if his magic career was struggling due to Borden's continuing sabotage?
Then there's Borden: Whether or not he could remember which knot he tied that fateful night, I place at his feet all of the blame for Angier's self-destruction. Alfred never comes across as sorry in the least for his possible role in Julia's death. Presumably at that point in time, he wasn't living "half a life" yet, because The Transported Man wasn't yet being performed, so it can only have been him on that stage. In the aftermath, he didn't even need to help Angier. Simply not sabotaging the career of the man whose wife he might have killed would have been enough to satisfy me.
They're both complete jerks to each other, and one might reasonably expect Victorian men to have more honor than either displayed. It's frankly a bit disgusting how much intrigue Nolan wrung out of these two hotheaded pricks.
All right, this third installment of the Kingsman series indeed did not feature Eggsy. I was correctly informed back in 2018, when I reviewed the second. (https://trakt.tv/comments/200749)
I was pleasantly surprised, then, that this prequel format worked as well as it did. My concerns then about dumping the whole core cast were unfounded. In fact, the whole Oxford family (and staff) were quite good together.
Four-letter words are again on prominent display throughout this script—though not nearly to the same degree as in The Golden Circle—which bothered me again. But this time, it was down to believability for various combinations of time period and character, rather than a sense of lazy writing. (I'm still not sure what they were going for with Rasputin, the sex-obsessed priest, because the obvious gag seems too obvious.)
Perhaps most impressively, the writers actually noticed that the final battle created a slight problem, and included dialogue about it. I was wondering, "How will they get down?" from the moment Shola grabbed the lift rope. Said problem was, of course, hand-waved away by a scene cut, but fine. Whatever. The characters at least mentioned it.
This film certainly does not belong in the "disappointment" bin alongside its predecessor. It's reasonably fun, if a bit slow at times, and gives us a nice backdrop to explain why things work the way they do way back in the first film. As a bonus, many of the events are based on true history—which is a very nice touch.*
* — Except for Hitler meeting Stalin in the mid-credits scene. That didn't really add anything.
I don't understand why the ratings for this are so low across the board. The satire is extremely well observed, and the application of parody nearly flawless. The only place NATM really lost me was at the idea that "Janey isn't attractive with her ponytail and glasses". Honestly, her normal self is much cuter than "the new and improved Janey Briggs" who goes to the party and the prom.
Well, OK, I also see where some other commenters are coming from about "toilet humor" and such; some very over-the-top gags did temper my overall rating a little. (For example: The peeping toms falling through the floor along with the girl they were spying on was hilarious; the toilet spraying an absolute crap-ton of excrement at them afterward was unnecessary.) But those were such small parts of an otherwise superbly executed film that it doesn't seem fair to tank its rating because of them.
Including background and bit parts, there are tons of connections to (sometimes future) teen sitcoms, movies, and other media: Even Stevens' Coach Tugnut as the football announcer; How I Met Your Mother's Ted Mosby as the guy who introduces us to the school; The A-Team's Mr. T as… well, best not spoil that one. There are so many actor connections, tiny prop/costume details, musical references, and miscellaneous touches included, it's impossible for me to list them all. I could rewatch the film five times, taking meticulous notes each time, and still miss half of them.
Clearly I'm not alone in thinking this was a hilarious movie. Based on reading other people's reviews, I guess it's just one of those things you either love or hate, and I'm in the camp that loved it.
The first words I heard came out of John Billingsley's mouth, and I was disappointed to note that he only appeared in that first scene.
Nice goof when Javier asks Emily if she texted the number he gave her, considering that the fraudsters called him when Emily checked in at their dummy shopping gig to confirm she was a legit referral.
"So Guinan and Professor McGonagall walk into a casino…"
But man, I missed Max Grodénchik. Not used to looking for him without the big Ferengi lobes…
Solid film. Slightly outdone by Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, but still great. We get to explore the relationships between Spock and Kirk & McCoy, see some Vulcan culture, and watch Christopher Lloyd play a Klingon! (To be honest, I couldn't help but visualize Doc Brown from Back to the Future (1985) delivering his lines. Even though this film came first, it was inevitable—and amusing.)
With the gang assembled, Kirk sets off on a personal mission to find his old friend again—the title tells us as much—but he ends up getting a lot more to deal with than he expects. Typical Star Trek? Yes. What we as viewers wanted to see? Definitely. (I'm harping again on how Star Trek: The Motion Picture wasn't as much of a true Star Trek production as its immediate sequels were. I might keep that up all the way to Generations.) Scotty, Uhura, and Chekov pull some lovable tricks along the way, and it's just great.
There's much less reuse of footage from previous films here. The main musical theme is distinct, but still feels like Star Trek, thanks to the work of returning composer James Horner (who also composed for the previous film). Look for the occasional odd cut here or there—sometimes it appears characters are repeating motions they just made in the previous camera angle—but technically this production is very impressive, and feels like a real stepping stone on the way to the effects we get to enjoy in the later TV series.
Spectacular effects with a weak grip on realism. What do you expect from a Michael Bay film?
"This is a true story", but no doubt the real details are less…Hollywood.
Saw most of the twist coming from 20-30 minutes in, but not the very last bit.
Beautiful story, let down a bit by production limitations (mostly music—synthesis in places where real instruments were called for). Worth a watch, though. It's Ghibli, so you really can't go wrong.
Captures the mood of the game very well. No doubt the game developer being on the writing team had something to do with it.
Going to see this tonight was honestly a bit of a dart-throw. It happened to be one of the films at the local cinema, starting shortly after the time when we said, "Hey, let's go see a movie." Sometimes, choosing a picture at random works out nicely.
Colette is a nice ride. I can't speak to its biographical accuracy, but it only drags a bit near the end. For most of the runtime, it's a pretty riveting film. Going in, I knew it was 111 minutes long, but it didn't feel so. Keira Knightley's performance kept me interested, and many of the supporting cast earned my attention as well (particularly Denise Gough and Dominic West—though really, they were the only ones with very much to do).
From a technical perspective, I do have one burning question for Mr. Wash Westmoreland: These characters write novels in French, read newspapers in French, and reside in France. Yet, they all speak in English, with UK slang. Why? Not since Sir Patrick Stewart's portrayal of Jean-Luc Picard (Star Trek: The Next Generation and subsequent films) ) have I been so puzzled by a supposedly French character. And in this film, every character puzzles me in that way.
The screenplay is the only other item I really feel like addressing. It's not bad—obviously, it kept me interested—but it didn't stand out either. Right from the start, the message is obvious. There's no question what the movie is building up to. We know what's coming pretty much as soon as Gabrielle and Willy get married. It's obvious. That doesn't make it any less satisfying; just unsurprising.
I definitely enjoyed this one. It was worth going to see Colette. I wouldn't call it a masterpiece, but it sure ain't trash either.
Having never truly seen the full movie until now, I was unaware that Wil Wheaton played a role in this. Not that he had much to do, but it's still neat that genius-boy Wesley Crusher was in this mad-scientist adventure, I guess. (Too bad his role here is no genius.)
Robin Williams carries the script, as one might expect. Most scenes with him are pretty great, despite an inexplicable blue light reflected in his glasses in nearly every closeup.
Overall, however, I don't think the script holds up very well. It's hard to put my finger on why, though it might be largely thanks to a cast of one-dimensional characters. We don't actually get to see much of Philip's relationship with Sarah; it's thrust upon us as a plot device, to give him a reason for all the silly stunts with the flubber later in the movie. Even Hoenicker is a walking, talking plot device—an excuse for that flubber-boosted "battle" in the library.
I'll just blame the script's many shortcomings on its age and origins. This is ultimately a remake of an adaptation, following a 1961 film (The Absent-Minded Professor) that was itself based on a short story from 1943. I'm not surprised at all that a 90-minute film based on a story from a 1940s magazine would have trouble presenting a compelling narrative. Certainly, it's been done, but it's hard. And in this case, there's an obvious "Disney remake" factor, too. That ol' Disney, always trying to make another buck off its own past material…
THIS FILM WAS CUT ENTIRELY ON A COMPUTER
I guess that was a new thing back in 1999? Still an odd statement to put in the credits, but it is tonally appropriate.
Honestly, this movie's comedy is more like what I expected when starting The Office after seeing all those memes/GIFs. If the TV show was like Office Space, I might actually be motivated to finish it.
Having chosen this at random, seeing how far down (well, far to the right) it was on Hulu's list of movie recommendations for me, I was surprised to recognize anyone in the cast. Margo Harshman was really not on my list of people I'd expect to see in, well, anything. When I revisited Even Stevens a while back (in which she played the recurring role of Tawny Dean), it seems like I looked at her IMDB credits and didn't see a huge number of roles. Finding her in something purely at random was cool.
Harshman aside, I was supremely impressed by the pacing and delivery from the film's leading men, Nicholas D'Agosto (Shawn) and Eric Christian Olsen (Nick, who should have traded character names with his costar). The plot might be predictable, and the jokes often obvious, but they are woven together very well and there's hardly a dull moment to be found anywhere in the film.
Maybe I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "infinitely rewatchable", but as something entertaining to watch once it's hard to beat a movie like this. There's even some truly clever humor thrown in there to make you switch your brain on a few times!
I really enjoyed the original Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015). It took itself just seriously enough to poke fun at the spy thriller genre, but with tongue firmly in cheek. Though over-the-top in parts, it never went too far. The story stayed grounded enough to be an effective genre buster. Come for the action, stay for the riffs on James Bond.
Kingsman: The Golden Circle, though… There's a certain irony to this film's "Manners maketh man" scene, considering how poor its characters' manners are. The words "fuck", "shit", and so on absolutely litter the script. Sometimes a single line of dialogue manages to cram in half a dozen. I'm not sure even a single character escaped the "Fuck" train. Pretty much everyone seems to say it at least once.
Honestly, the writing just came across as lazy. That's yet another irony, because I'm sure the writers were working harder than ever trying to repeat the first film's formula and create a worthy sequel. Sadly, they failed. Cursing doesn't make a joke funny—unless it's already funny, then maybe a well-timed "Fuck!" can restart the giggles when they begin to subside.
The film's treatment of its female characters didn't help my opinion, either. Everyone doing anything of the "saving the world" variety was a man. Now, I'm a man too, and one of the things I really appreciated about 2015's Kingsman film was Roxy. I thought having a female spy working alongside Eggsy et al was part of the genre-busting, given that women usually only get "damsel in distress" roles in classic spy flicks. But in this go-around, Roxy isn't part of the picture (she's taken out along with all the other Kingsman agents near the beginning) and I'm afraid Ginger Ale—Halle Berry's real character name *gag*—couldn't make up for that.
All of this—plus the cheap-looking CGI—made for a very long 141 minutes.
Allegedly, the next Kingsman film (due out next year) won't even have Eggsy in it. This film killed off Merlin. I'm not sure what results the producers are expecting by replacing basically the entire core cast, considering what happened after they dumped most of them already for this go-around. I'll probably still watch the next film, but I expect it will be as bad as this one, if not worse.
Could not take it seriously with the robots' abilities that don't even exist in the year in which this was set, let alone the slew of appliances with "PAL Chip installed" that could do completely ridiculous things. Not one of these devices should have been able to pose a threat, unless they were intentionally manufactured with features that would never apply to any intended use of the product.*
I can ignore little details that are embellished or ignored for the purpose of telling a better story, but when the entire premise of a film set in the present rests on impossible and unrealistic technology? Pass.
Even better, no one thought of just… finding another PAL retail store when the mall's router was destroyed with the upload at 98% complete? This film's entire spectacle rests on its characters' poor decision-making and lack of forethought—including the defective robots that join the gang and tell them about the solution.
I'll admit that the story is a bit heartwarming, but it's nothing new. It's also trying too hard regarding commentary on the influence of technology in today's world. Several lines of dialogue are extremely heavy-handed, as if the writers expect the audience to understand nothing and need to have the "moral" of the story handed to them.
Ugh. I wanted to love it. At least I can steal some playlist entries from the soundtrack.
* — See: Furbies that spit plasma beams, laptops that could close on your hands and crush them, refrigerators that walk… I could go on and on about that mall scene.
Superb film, absolutely breathtaking. I couldn't find a single frame that didn't keep me enthralled.
Honestly, I don't feel like knocking off any points for the small flaws I did notice. Some of the accents might have been a bit thick, and maybe it did take me a moment to realize that the "new" boy was actually an older version of the same kid, but meh… Those are tiny details, and the script was otherwise quite tight.
If I sat and thought about it for long enough, I'm sure I could find a plot hole or two to bring down my score, but why bother? There's no reason to go out of my way to tear down such a masterfully executed film.
You should go see this. It's definitely worth the two hour investment.
Watch it for the animation. But if you've ever seen a Shinkai film before, you knew that.
I'm guilty of allowing major holes in my familiarity with Makoto Shinkai's films. I've seen She and Her Cat, Your Name., The Garden of Words, and 5 Centimeters Per Second—which leaves the majority of his work unseen. However, those cover enough of a time range that I can see Shinkai both has and hasn't always made movies like this. (I know: "What does that mean?!" Keep reading.)
By that, I mean that he's basically always had a certain focus on three things: Stunning visuals, beautiful music, and teenage romance. If I was allowed one and only one critique of Weathering With You, it would be the awful English title translation that the film feels a little too much like Your Name. On the most basic, structural level, it goes through a very similar "false resolution" before getting into the true conflict. Both stories ultimately hinge on old legends made manifest, though in different ways. And if we get into the details a bit more, things like Taki and Hodaka both chasing after their respective love interests through physically demanding journeys across the landscape stand out.
Actually, I have to modify some of that. Weathering With You is not "too much like Your Name." as much as it is "not enough like Your Name. where it counts". The writing in this latest release feels insufficiently edited. It doesn't flow quite as well.
None of this is to say that the movie isn't worth seeing! It very much is. Just do your best not to get lost, and pay attention, because lots of things are only ever mentioned (or shown) once and you'll miss them if you so much as blink at the wrong time.
The absolute cheek of Hulu calling this a "Hulu Original" when it was originally announced in 2012, got stuck in development hell at 20th Century Fox, then was planned to release under Entertainment Studios Motion Pictures, then the release was postponed, re-announced, delayed again before the film leaked a few months ago…
Hulu, you had nothing to do with creating this movie; please don't brand it like you did.
I'm also interested in any background on why the version Hulu released this week runs only 94 minutes, when IMDB indicates the runtime should be 100 minutes. What did they cut? I wonder…
I have to admit that it's fun. The characters are all pretty flat, even Roy, but the concept is cool enough even if Mel Gibson makes for a really lame villain with no depth whatsoever.
Where others objected to the title, I thought "Boss Level" was fairly apt. Roy's experience mirrors what a gamer might have to do in order to clear a particularly difficult level in a video game. That worked really well for me—much better than the characters.
You think Selina Lo ever got tired of saying, "I am Guan Yin, and Guan Yin has done this"? :joy:
Mockingjay Part 2's biggest mistake is being completely faithful to the book, considering that it is the worst one of the trilogy. They had the chance to make the story better but chose to stick to what they had. Being the final chapter of the story, it has emotional bits, but miserably (and unfortunately) fails to sell them, rushing the scenes which we were supposed to remember the most.
— @aag's review (https://trakt.tv/comments/62697, and we need proper internal link markup on Trakt!)
Seriously. The big dramatic moments are unbelievably rushed—there's no time to dig into them. There's too much focus on bad CGI and not enough on characters. Basically every character is 2D at best, except maybe Katniss and Peeta. But that's also due to sticking true to the book. None of the characters in the books were particularly well fleshed out, either, as I recall (from reading them 3 ½ years ago).
I also found the story very predictable. Obviously there's some amount of subconscious influence from having read the books, but it's also just absolutely clear when the big surprises/twists are going to happen, and what they'll be. They end up not being surprising at all. (Not to belabor the point, but the book had this problem too.)
My other big issue—which applies to the whole series—is that we barely see anything that happens away from Katniss. I know it's quite common in YA novels to present a limited first-person perspective from the protagonist's point of view, but in a big political saga like this I feel like that severely limits the storytelling.
Paul Cicero's cigar is magic, it disappears in between shots (the scene at 25 minutes-ish). That's one of a few truly glaring continuity errors in this film. (IMDB lists a remarkable number of "Goofs", but most of them are so small you'd have to really be looking for them. Not so with the cigar—that one practically slaps the viewer in the face and says, "Hi! Just wanted to remind you that this is a film.")
Having just finished the film, my foremost thought is that Henry's parents kind of disappeared. They were important at the beginning, and then suddenly they vanished from the narrative when it was convenient. Bit disappointing—not that there weren't enough characters to keep track of as the story continued.
The other thing on my mind, a bigger-picture thought, is that the movie feels both long and slow, and quick, somehow. At roughly the one-hour mark I was surprised how much time had gone by. But that's where it began to feel like it slowed down, too. The remaining 60% or so of the film increasingly dragged on until the last 20 minutes. A lot of it had to do with the sheer number of times Tommy was shown to be a careless, hot-headed asshole with a gun. Most of those scenes didn't add anything new to his character.
GoodFellas is an impressive piece of cinema, but at times it gets bogged down in atmosphere for atmosphere's sake, needlessly extending the run time without contributing to the film (whose world is already quite well defined even without those scenes). If the whole film was as engrossing as the first hour, it truly would be a masterpiece. 8/10
I was pleasantly surprised by the layers of parody and homage in the screenplay.
On the surface, this is Yet Another Animated Superhero Film. Deep down… well, it's still that. As it's targeted at younger audiences, the plot is neither complex nor filled with unpredictable twists. Older viewers like myself will see everything coming from miles away—but it's a fairly enjoyable ride.
Something about the vocal performances, and/or how they were tied into the character models, felt "off" the whole time, unfortunately. Other animation studios have a better handle on melding the elements of an animated character into one cohesive whole, but I should also cut DreamWorks Animation some slack on this ten-year-old film.
What makes this a solid 7/10 for me despite the predictable story beats and technical production values was the core of this story: Megamind's development as a person. In the end, he's the only important thing in the movie. Sure, the action sequences were pretty well done. Yes, Minion was a great (riff on the archetype of) sidekick. But if Megamind didn't grow and change as the story progressed, this would have fallen flat.
In a perfect world, the deus ex machina part of the ending when Metroman "came back" would have been real, but I'm nitpicking again.
Worth a watch. Maybe don't buy it for your permanent library, but Megamind is certainly good enough for some evening when you want something decently amusing to watch that won't require a ton of focus to understand.
Compared to the first Star Trek feature film—a first effort that almost felt like watching grass grow—The Wrath of Khan delivers a real Star Trek experience in movie format. Traces of some of the original's flaws remain, but they are appropriately contained in sequences that make heavy (re)use of footage from the first, very sedately paced film.
It was probably inevitable that this second film would make a bigger splash. After all, its very title invokes one of the Trek fandom's favorite villains, and promises to bring him back. And back he comes, Ricardo Montalban performing splendidly—perhaps even better than he did in the TV series episode that introduced Khan.
There's also just more meat to this plot than the first film. It has character development, it establishes additional backstory, and even introduces a new technology (the "defense field") never seen again in a Trek production. Joking aside, Kirk and Spock get to explore real emotion, and we see just how far Spock will go for logic. (Stopping just short of a spoiler here so I don't have to flag this.)
Keep an eye out for an egregiously bad cut near the end—it's notable because it's the only truly bad edit in the film (that I've noticed). I'll say only to keep an eye on Kirk when he's in Engineering—anything more would be a spoiler.
Some good and some bad. The pacing issues are understandable, as the fourth book was the longest yet in the series and they still had to cram it into a 2.5-hour movie. A major continuity error (the awning ripped in half by Harry's dragon magically is repaired for a later wide shot) and incorrect application of the Expelliarmus spell (Krum is still holding his wand after landing on his back, unconscious) drag it down a bit, as do editing shortcuts that mangle character in a few spots.
It's a first effort at adapting Star Trek to the feature film format, and it shows. Pacing is very slow for most of the film, only picking up near the climax. The slowness is not helped by long, drawn-out shots of the ship—leaving spacedock, exploring new environments, etc. At the time, I suppose, the audiences probably loved getting to see such views of the ship they'd known up until then only on small television screens, but that's the only purpose these…let's call them "ship porn" shots…serve. Dramatically, they belong on the cutting room floor (or, more accurately, should never have been shot, given how much of the $43 million budget effects shots consumed).
There just isn't enough plot to fill the runtime of this film. It feels like a standard one-hour TV episode script stretched to fill 2+ hours with eye candy. Presented as an episode of the original TV series that ran from 1966-1969, the film's plot would likely have been quite at home. As a full-length feature film, though, it felt like a slog. For the first 90 minutes or so I found myself often checking the playback position, the movie-watcher's version of constantly asking Mom, "Are we there yet?"
That's not what you want your viewers to do when they watch your film.
Update from the future: In summer 2019, TrekMovie interviewed Douglas Trumbull about his work on Star Trek: The Motion Picture, as a lead-up to the film's 40th anniversary and Trumbull's first appearance at a Trek convention. Read it here: https://trekmovie.com/2019/07/26/interview-vfx-pioneer-douglas-trumbull-on-how-it-took-a-miracle-to-complete-star-trek-the-motion-picture/
Google were right to feature this film on Chrome's "New Tab" page when it came out. It's breathtaking. Lion deserves a 10/10 for cinematography.
I wish I could agree with the choice to cast Dev Patel in the lead role, though. Apart from the difference in skin tone, Patel's Saroo spent a lot of the film playing something of a sex icon. As amazing as the story is, I found the execution disappointing in the area of character development. Saroo himself didn't really get fleshed out, and as a result he remains kind of a cardboard cutout, a place for the viewer to self-insert and imagine how it would feel to be in his place.
One other big issue: Saroo's adopted brother. We find out almost nothing about him over the course of the film. His obvious mental illness/disability is sidelined to just a couple of scenes—sidelined to the point of being irrelevant. As the viewer, we know it exists, but that's all. We don't know what it is, or if he's undergoing treatment, or if he tried treatment and it failed to help, or how it's really affecting his life. Its effect on Sue is alluded to in a few places, but nothing about Mantosh himself.
It irks me a bit that the film devoted so much screen time to Saroo flicking the Google Earth map around. Some of that time could have been spent further developing characters, perhaps showing some of Saroo's life growing up. Skipping ahead 20 years deprived the audience of opportunities to watch Saroo adapt to life in Australia.
All that said, I realize that this film is essentially a pseudo-biography of living people, and as such there must have been limitations on what the film was able to show. So I can't lop off a mess of rating points for the perceived holes in the screenplay. And besides, it was still a damn enjoyable film.
