I honestly thought I'd written a review after seeing this during its limited American theatrical run last April (almost exactly 9 months ago), but apparently I did not.
To my past self: Why not?
Anyway. I remember being absolutely blown away by this film at the time. Despite not writing a review, I did give it a 10/10 rating. For now I'll leave that up, I guess, but as often happens upon rewatching films it appears that my rating needs revision.
Were I rating Your name. from scratch today, I would honestly probably give it a 7 or 8. Having just completed my third viewing of the film, I now realize that the script is nowhere near as tight as it should be. My grandmother (nearing age 94) might have said it best: "Well, that was interminable!" I actually can't disagree with her. At the theatrical showing there was such energy in the room from all the hype and excitement and anticipation we all felt that the time just flew by. Not so during a casual viewing. It does kinda drag.
If I had to point my finger at a single culprit for the script's lack of focus, it would be the genre shift. While I remember being blown away after the theatrical screening, I also distinctly remember being very irritated by the film's genre bait-and-switch. Now, with two more viewings under my belt, I can see that the exposition of the first two thirds (really) is too drawn out, and the really interesting part of the story—the race against the clock, I guess—is rushed to the point of becoming almost an afterthought. I actually want to know what Mitsuha did to finally save Itomori, after all of Taki's efforts fell apart. :/
It's still a beautiful, quirky piece of animation and any anime fan should definitely watch it—but objectively, it's nowhere near perfect.
No Quidditch for years, and suddenly we get tryouts and snippets of a match because it's plot-relevant again. I know there's only so much that can be packed into a movie series, even one with such long installments as this, but a little backstory on how Harry got to be team captain and what happened to Wood would have been nice.
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.
Was getting more and more into it, until the helicopter pilot simply accepted Ava as his passenger instead of Caleb and flew her off into the wild blue yonder, no questions asked. The ending was thus highly unrealistic; Ava was much more likely to have had to walk Nathan's entire estate. Given that the helicopter pilot wasn't even allowed to fly within of the building, it's unbelievable that any pilot contracted or employed by Nathan would simply pick up a passenger other than the one he was ordered to. Overall it's a stunning film, but the plot has a hole or two.
As soon as Mr. Smee opened his mouth, I knew I'd heard his voice before (and I don't mean from watching this movie as a kid). Adult me is highly amused to find that Smee shares his voice actor with the White Rabbit from Alice in Wonderland (1951)—Bill Thompson. Turns out Kathryn Beaumont (Wendy) was also the voice of Alice in the same film. (Among the many other connections between this and other films of its time, Candy Candido (the Indian Chief's voice) also played a brief uncredited part in The Wizard of Oz (1939) as an angry apple tree, and in Dumbo (1941) as a roaring lion.)
Watching this for the first time in probably 15 years, I realize now what a jealous bitch Tinkerbell is to Wendy. Didn't really get that when I was a kid—but then, I was just a kid.
Something else I really appreciate now as an art in itself: The crocodile's animations. Whenever he's moving around, we hear the tick-tock of the clock he swallowed, and some part of him is almost always moving in a tick-tock fashion as a nod to that. It's simply perfect.
Having had the chance to watch a great many other cartoons since I last saw this film, I also appreciated the Wile E. Coyote connection: Hook chases Peter off a tall rock and continues stepping in mid-air until Peter points to his feet as if to say "You're standing on nothing," at which point Hook falls. I think the only Wile E. Coyote cartoon that had used a cliff gag of that type at the time this film was produced was the first short, Fast and Furry-ous (1949), but that's early enough that it could have been written into the screenplay for Peter Pan as a nod to Looney Toons.
One last interesting connection I realized: In both Peter Pan and Pinocchio (1940), a character takes a drag on a smoking device of some kind and turns greenish. Here, John takes a pull on the Indians' pipe; in Pinocchio, Pinocchio is given a cigar. I'm sure if I did a proper study (if watching every Disney animated film could be called that), I'd find several instances of this. Seems like a subtle anti-smoking message embedded for the kids watching.
Seems to want to be a Robocop parody for kids, or put another way: "What if Robocop was a slapstick physical comedy?"
I can't help but wonder if one of the other potential actors considered to play John would have helped the film… Jim Carrey or Robin Williams in particular. It would have been tough, though. No role had much to work with in the character department.
If one of the few things that got a laugh out of me now was seeing Igor from Young Frankenstein in the minion recovery meeting, that's not a great batting average. This script is objectively a mess. I'm not even judging it in comparison to the cartoon series, as I've never seen that.
As a young kid, I remember seeing this because I spent the whole feature plugging my ears; the theater had their sound system set waaaaaaay too loud. Between that and my age, I didn't catch any of the subtler gags and references that kept me going during this viewing. Star Trek fan that I became later in life, now I'm disappointed that Rene Auberjonois had such a brief role in this movie.
Presented cropped to 16:9 on Disney+, sadly. This '90s production obviously wasn't shot to be widescreen-safe. I'm thankful that I found the original aspect ratio still available on DisneyNOW, for the time being.
This must have been one of the few DCOMs I actually watched back in the day. Most of the story felt familiar.
Part of that's no doubt due to how it retreads familiar territory from Star Trek: Voyager about the holographic doctor, his status as a person vs. a program, and the idea of holographic life. Disney's take on the subject is unsurprisingly focused less on legal and ethical questions, and sticks to the learning angle: what can this artificial life form teach our young protagonists about the human condition?
More so than most of these TV movies, I think the lesson works just fine. Nitpicking opportunities aren't hard to find—Loretta's gymnastics alone open several cans of physics worms—but we can put that all aside. The "realistic" science fiction approach has obviously been softened in the name of story. Sometimes doing that doesn't work, but I say here it does.
Despite memeable dialogue throughout, the script as a whole doesn't do much for me—in large part, because the timeframe is too short.
Perhaps I shouldn't have revisited this one. I'm not convinced that I'd seen the whole thing before, now, but the likely truth is that I did see all of it and just forgot everything but the memes because the story is… well, forgettable.
Featured this week (end of May 2022) in digital screenings from Chicago Japan Film Collective.
This almost feels like an alternate-universe version of Your Lie in April to me. At least, enough elements are similar: high school, music, chronic disease, possible love polygon. The tone, however, is completely different.
But before I go on about the script, let's talk performances. Choosing this film—the one that brought CJFC 2022 to my attention—based on its two leads turned out to be a smashing decision. Yuzumi and Marin sold every one of their scenes, showing off every bit of skill they learned from years in Amuse's Sakura Gakuin group. It's too bad that music wasn't a larger part of this story. There was a point where I thought it was about to turn into a musical, and got excited, but that's not where the story went.
Speaking of which… If I could make only one complaint about this film, it would be that the script throws us too many unexplained curve balls. Starting with a nebulous illness that made Yuki skip a year of school didn't give us a great foundation. I don't especially like beginning a movie with a "Just… okay?" (with apologies to Barney Stinson), but that wasn't the last. Between Yuki losing her voice, the doctor losing his job at that hospital, Maki getting amnesia, and the police getting a confession out of Yusuke all in the space of one cut, it's just too much of the unseen for me.
To me, the film's actual message got lost while I was asking "But what about…?" and "He did what?" along the way. Which is too bad.
As soon as I saw Poe, my first thought was, "Is that an older Rico [from Suite Life]?" And it is! Had absolutely no idea that Will was played by one of the Sprouse twins, though.
Oof. Ultimately it's a cheesy, sappy romance story, but there's a punch to it. Slight spoiler below explains part of why I found it a 10.
Stella's obsession with Abby's last moments is entirely too relatable for me, especially combined with the fact that I've also lost both a sibling and a best friend. The circumstances aren't quite identical, but still.
The movie might be showing its age, or maybe I'm showing mine. The structure just felt off. The pacing was much too slow until the last quarter. There's something grating about Maverick's character—there's supposed to be, but I couldn't really find anything to like about him. And of course the romance is entirely unnecessary, but that's been a Hollywood problem since long before this movie (and still is).
Two major components to this review: structure and impact. I will use inline spoiler tags, but note that I do not consider facts about the true events to be spoilers. It's a biopic—we know what happened. But if you don't, be warned that I will "spoil the ending", as it were, and stop reading now.
Now, then.
This is an important story. We all know what happened to the plane, and we all know what usually happens to aircraft whose pilots attempt to do what Sully pulled off. The story of the cra— I mean, forced water landing, itself is amazing. The whole process is so incredible, and this movie captures everything from the initial bird strike through the last boats carrying passengers to shore. I thought the story of the landing itself was done very, very well. This movie is worth watching on the strength of that portrayal alone.
I did have some major objections to the structure, though. They're probably not unlike @LuckyNumber78's complaints…though I'm not coming at this from the perspective of a screenwriter, just as a viewer.
Specifically, the most insulting sequence in the entire film to me was the beginning, which seems like it's throwing us right into the narrative, but turns out to be a just a dream (if it wasn't given away already by the aircraft trying to fly through Manhattan, grazing skyscrapers on its way to a fiery crash). That put me in a pretty skeptical mood for the rest of the film, and for good reason—lots of sequences turn out to be Sully's daydreams/hallucinations/imagination. They were not managed well, in my opinion. That's not to say I object to their use; just that they weren't done well in this film.
The whole temporal flow of the film is pretty unhinged, actually. Though it technically follows a single event from start to finish (the NTSB investigation), even that continuity is disrupted in places. The film retreads certain events, and includes a few others, for no discernible dramatic purpose. And even when it does buckle down and get on with settling the NTSB investigation once and for all, the climax reeks of half-assed attempts to make it "Hollywood suspenseful" that just fall flat. (I mean most of the final NTSB hearing, if you're wondering, where evidence like the report on the left engine shows up at the last minute.)
To be quite honest, I waffled between a 5 and a 6 on this one, not because I didn't find the film compelling, but because it doesn't work structurally. I get that there's an element of metaphor in how the film is laid out, and I appreciate it, but for a film like this it's really not in the story's best interest to keep the audience guessing at what's real. I finally decided on a 6, but only because the true story deserves more than a 5.
Skimming other reviews of this film elsewhere, I've seen accusations of slow pacing, bad writing, unrealistic characters… For every reviewer who found the movie amazing, it's almost like that had to be balanced out by someone else who couldn't stand it.
Someone will have to balance out my review, then, because I need more films like Leave No Trace in my life.
Sometimes, if a movie leaves me wondering what actually happened, it's a sign of incoherent writing, or editing. Other times—as with Leave No Trace—it means I wasn't paying close enough attention to the details. And no, I'm definitely not in the segment of moviegoers who would argue that it's the filmmaker's job to make sure I know what's happening. Nothing smacks of "inexperienced director" like hitting me, the viewer, over the head with a plot point several times to make sure I got it.
Fortunately there's none of that in Leave No Trace. I've been meaning to watch Winter's Bone for some time, but I'll have to bump it up a few slots on the ol' watchlist after seeing this. If the two films share any of the same DNA (and they do, in the form of writer and director Debra Granik), I'll love that one too.¹ I can't get enough of this storytelling technique, where the characters just…exist, and don't stand there explaining what's happening (or what happened before now) for the audience's benefit.
Not everyone appreciates this style of "expositionless" storytelling, to be sure. One IMDB reviewer said "it seemed this [movie] had a beginning, beginning and beginning."² But those of us who relish poking fun at the "exposition dumps" traditional screenplays often throw out really love being left to our own interpretations of characters' words and actions. Or at least… I do.
This isn't an easy movie to watch, really. I wouldn't throw it up to relax after a hard day. The subject matter gets too deep for that, I think. But it is very much worth the journey. Along with those critical accusations I mentioned earlier, numerous reviewers also called this film insightful, thought-provoking, and uncomfortable. I agree with all of those, at least on some level. Scenes that might seem kind of throwaway at first (the church service, say) always turned out to be plot-relevant in the end.
Leave No Trace is slow and quiet at times, but it's never boring.
https://www.imdb.com/review/rw4250151/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.
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/
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.
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.
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 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…
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.
Captures the mood of the game very well. No doubt the game developer being on the writing team had something to do with it.
