Taz Goes to the Cinema 2020

→ in
Tools    





To be honest, going blind is one of my biggest fears, in small part because I assumed the loss of sight would mean an end to watching movies. It's quite reassuring to read how much enjoyment you're still able to derive from one of my biggest passions. I've never listened to the audio description of a movie, but now I'm curious to hear just how vividly they describe actions/settings/etc., and how often that interferes with dialogue.

I don't watch many movies in the theater anymore, so everything you've written about in here so far is too new for me to have seen, but it's still very cool to read reviews from such a unique perspective. I'll be following your thread from here on out.
__________________



To be honest, going blind is one of my biggest fears, in small part because I assumed the loss of sight would mean an end to watching movies. It's quite reassuring to read how much enjoyment you're still able to derive from one of my biggest passions. I've never listened to the audio description of a movie, but now I'm curious to hear just how vividly they describe actions/settings/etc., and how often that interferes with dialogue.

I don't watch many movies in the theater anymore, so everything you've written about in here so far is too new for me to have seen, but it's still very cool to read reviews from such a unique perspective. I'll be following your thread from here on out.

Thanks very much. It is true though, that my perception of a movie can be substantially different from what most people would have,because I am reliant on another aspect that the screenwriter, director etc did not have control of. That can be both a blessing and a curse however, as there are times when feel like I've really missed out on some things and other times been able to pick up on things most people miss. And not unusual to require repeated sit throughs to get everything. It just depends.

Your anxiety about the potential of sight loss is all too relatable, Wish it hadn't happened to me, and movies are the least of the worries, compared to everything from cooking to crossing the road. It's not fun, to say the least. Losing my sight cost me the other great passion that I had, which was travel, so at least am grateful for what I did get to do when I did, but at least have still been able to enjoy movies, if not to the same extent as sighted folk are naturally, as it is primarily a visual medium.

At the cinema, I tend to just use the one side of the AD headset covering one ear for the AD, leaving the other one uncovered, so I can hear the dailogue, music etc.Also the quality of the reception can differ from headset to headset, or screen to screen, and to rub it in, there is no way to test for it until the movie itself actually starts, as the AD doesn't start til then.

The AD is usually intersperced throughout the film but not at the same time as dialogue is being spoken (with the exception of the very few non-english language films that get an AD treatment.

With the likes of action movies etc, it will go through and describe the kicking, punching, shooting, whatevering that is going on, but most actions sequences I tend to mentally switch off a bit, because you know James Bond (or whoever) is not going to die in the first 10 minutes etc. So letting that play out, but still listening for the detail (was the switch flipped, who got the parcel at the end of the fight etc, but aside from that I don't pay too close attention. But something like John Wick I really struggled with as it was non-stop description as it is soooo much action and know I missed things, but get the gist enough to not feel compelled to need a repeat screening.

Often in a horror & action etc, the descriptions do have to start a fraction before the action happens on screen, because there is more that it has to describe, so there have been plenty of times when have felt the backs of seats around me all lurching at the same time from people all reacting to a jumpscare (for example) at the same time, that I've either been oblivious to or have had that split second heads up that it is about to happen, lol.

The settings are generally casually described, as are for example, facial or body movement if it is relevant, but the AD is not there to describe every twitch as that would be excessively interfering. If it is relevant it will be mentioned, also if there is a long enough period where there is no dialogue then it will be given more detail. Waves is a recent really good example of this. Also, I don't know how or who provides the AD, if it is the studios themselves, the distributor in each country etc, but who it is can also effect my perception of the film.

Anyhow, hope that gives a bit of insight. If there is anythign specific you'd like to know, by all means feel free to ask.



Queen & Slim

It's a simple premise: A young couple meet on their first date and before they know it, end up on the run. The film boasts a pair of very good central performances by Jodie Turner-Smith and Daniel Kaluuya, as we follow the pair as a burgeoning romance begins to take shape while being on the run necessitates some additional criminal acts under these conditions, including a series of narrow escapes, and without realizing the extent of their actions effecting a much wider community.

There is more than a little touch of Bonnie & Clyde here - a reference even characters in the story acknowledges, and much more recent, one that immediately sprang to mind was The Hate U Give. It's a promising directorial debut and will be most interested to see what Melina Matsoukas does next.


Richard Jewell

Clint Eastwood's latest offering is one of the more disappointing and undewhelming of his long and lauded directorial career. Unlike most films, I am really struggling to understand why this movie even exists.

There are so many true miscarraiges of justice out there in the world, let alone those whose plight have been commited to film. Even recently highlighted in a film like Just Mercy that is representative of the tip of the proverbial iceberg of those who have been targeted through profiling, have been convicted, tried, imprisioned and sometimes even died for crimes that they didn't commit.

By contrast, and with respect to the real life Richard Jewell, being inconvenienced for less than 3 months during which time he was never detained in custody seems to lack gravitas. Obviously noone should be subject to assumptions based on profiling and likewise, everyone deserves to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Nor is it was right that he had to go through that in the first place.

However, without the context of why was it felt necessary that this story had to be told, and indeed, why now, I really don't see the point of this movie. It's like they were looking for a hard hitting subject matter and landed on this watered down store brand diet-cola of a story. Other than it is a white guy being subjected to profiling instead of an African-American character in a Hollywood film, but still begs the question.. why this story? And why, if it was such a big deal or socially relevant, why wait 25 years to tell it?

Paul Walter Hauser (in the title role) feels as though he walked straight off the I, Tonya lot and without missing a beat or bothering to change character wallked onto this set. And as good as the entire cast was in I, Tonya, this kind of feels like that character has been given a spin off, to having his own movie here, so similiar do they feel. He is an actor with ability but this feels like the only direction he was given is, "liked what you did in that movie. Do the same thing here." which he will have to be careful lest end up typecast. Sam Rockwell is steady as Jewell's lawyer and Kathy Bates likewise as his mother.

In truth, I dont really see why Bates has been Oscar nominated here. Bates is a fantastic actress and is great in just about everything, but there is nothing really special here. Her character, like all of the supporting roles, are written pretty one-dimensionally, and despite some early suggestions of health issues early on, nothing is made of this. That Bobi Jewell is only ever presented as Richard's mother concerned for her son. Aside from that, what do you actually ever learn about Bobi Jewell in her own right? This is not Kathy Bates' fault, as she can only make the most with what she has been given to work with. But that is the problem, not just for her, but the entire cast and even the director.

The material they have been given is crap.

The writing is truly the central flaw here. Billy Ray's last 4 films were Overlord, Gemini Man, Terminator: Dark Fate and now this. The script plays fast and loose with facts, the supporting characters are more caricatures (especially Hamm's FBI agent and Wilde's journalist), and Jewell is presented as a bit odd, over-zealous but good intentioned, while downplaying much of his checkered past and when it is brought up it's treated almost like a joke; that it's all a bit inconsequential. Likewise every cheap ploy and trope is used to paint the FBI and the media circus in as poor a light as possible, using questionable tactics, engaging n unethical behaviour and being fixated on Jewell instead of trying to track down the real culprit.

There is a trend here. If the writing is bad, a bad movie will follow. Doesn't matter how much money you throw at a project, how skilled the cast is or how notable the director, if at it's heart is poor writing, then the best anyone involved with the project can do is make the best of what you have, If that happens to be a pig, and basically everything else is lipstick on a pig.

If you want to see a movie about someone being profiled and framed, a vastly better film about a vastly more serious miscarriage of justice, how it impacts not just one innocent person but an entire family, and in particular a parent caught up in this who was also Oscar Nominated which is much better developed character then ladies and gentlemen, may I refer you to, In the Name of the Father.



Went to the movies with my daughter, originally for 1 movie, ended up delaying coming home and catching a second to try and avoid the rugby crowds in Edinburgh, so took in an encore of the excellent Jojo Rabbit in addition to...

Doolittle


The best thing about this movie is that it is over and will never have to sit through it again. It may be different for those sighted patrons, but I could not follow what the hell was going on most of the time, and when it is essentially a kid's film, that is not good. The AD was of no help whatsoever either. Uncharismatic, unfunny and entirely lacklustre, and when no kids are laughing, you know there is a problem. Again, it might be great to look at, but the story is pretty lame, Downey Jr delivers Dootlittle's lines as if he has been taken over by a machine, so mechanical and bland, like a bad impression of his Sherlock Holmes from what I am assuming is supposed to be set around the same Victorian era, but that is about as close as the 2 charactwers share. They left the door open for a sequel - please don't make this a reality. Awful.



The movie wasn't hard to fallow you just weren't interested to start with.



The movie wasn't hard to fallow you just weren't interested the start with.
Not true. I go into every movie with an open mind. I never seek out reviews before hand, and detest spoilers. The basic premise of the movie is not hard to understand, but that is not the same thing as understanding what is going on throughout.

I don't have a problem with the concept either (even though none of the versions have been particularly great), but as for the rendition of the Doolittle character, there is a charm to the Rex Harrison take and can appreciate the appeal of Eddie Murphy's version. This was devoid of both. As I stated above for the most part he spoke rather statically and mechanically. Whether this was supposed to illustrate his not being used to conversing with other people for so long or has become accustomed as that is how he is used to communicating with animals, this is unclear also or for whatever other reason, but aurally it sounded, like I described - stilted and mechanical.

My perception of a movie is that I have to rely on what I can hear and the audio descriptions being offered. It may be it was easy to follow for people that can actually see what is happening, what is being said by who and so forth. I had no idea if they were people or the animals talking most of the time.

When we first meet Downey Jr's Doolittle, he is communicating to the animals in their language (grunts and beating his chest while communicating with a gorilla, for example, which was described), which could have made for an interesting take, but that vanished and suddenly it was talking in english and having no idea who or what he was talking to, or if animals were talking to each other, and that his apprentice learns to do this also but not actually learning this from Doolittle, and not really sure where that went or if it all just magically clicked?

Maybe the visuals are stunning but I cannot judge on that. The Lion King (2019) drew a lot of praise because of this element and the photo-realism. Personally I was bored with most of that movie, because the story and dialogue was almost an exact duplication of the original, with the songs and the majority of the voice cast seemingly performing an inferior imitation.

It may be that the audio description track itself is inadequate for Doolittle, but what I wrote was based on my experience of the movie and has nothing to do with not being 'interested to start with'.



Well for me a movie needs to kinda grab me in the opening 15 minutes. Doolittle suffered from setting up how much the area needed Doolittle animal wise. The Classic with Harrison spent 30 minutes of setting up a person of practice. Storyline been better if Doolittle met this women and he was an odd person out. Downey could have played that better. Seems like they tried to make Downey seem not like Sherlock Holmes and really it been fine if played his Holmes self for this.



Parasite

I originally sat through this some months ago at a film festival screening, and the AD was effected badly by static and found myself having to spend most of the film's duration with my head down by my knees to try and hear what was being described. Now that it has finally had a wide release here in the UK, and on the heels of winning the Best Picture Oscar, it's actually been given a new AD track, this time with the dialogue in english being performed by the same narrator, and given different accents/voice effections. Which made it more bizarre, having the original housekeeper being used with a soft attempt at a Scottish accent, the orignal driver a slow Southern-esque drawl etc. If anyone is going to catch this in the UK while it's at the cinema, this was definitely a unique AD listening experience, unlike any I've encountered before, for Roma, The Farewell or Lion etc. So even if you can read the subtitles on screen, it would be interesting to see what a sighted person made of this, lol.

As for the film itself, this sit through, while technically an encore, did make aspects of it much clearer than my first experience, and while it was one of the better films of last year, I am still not sure it is quite deserving of the praise that it has been bestowed with. Again, perhaps I am missing out on some aspects that are apparent to most viewers, but quite like the first sit through, I'm still unsure as to why the necessity to take the sharp left turn in the 3rd act which does shift the tone of the film. I do like the underlying currents throughout, and even with the benefit of AD there were occasions where could hear people laughing when I was oblivious... but then again, there were a couple of times when would hear something in the AD that would give me a bit of a laugh that those around me were oblivious to also, so yeah, lol.

However, as is often the case with the Oscars, it is only after they take the wrong path that they seek to course correct. As such, I wonder if they had given Roma it's due deserves last year instead of giving the award to Green Book, would Parasite now be sitting as the 2nd consecutive non-English language Best Picture winner or would the award gone elsewhere? Just food for thought.



Underwater

One of these films that I tend to think of in hindsight as a missed opportunity. The premise being of an underwater adventure where the drilling station becomes compromised and being destroyed by unknown creatures, and a small band of survivors have to get from place to place in the hopes of surviving? Sound familiar? There are elements of The Abyss and Leviathan from the late 80's, as much as Kristen Stewart's character is essentially Ripley from the Aliens franchise. It's not a bad film, and it doesn't overstay it's welcome either, but it's not a good film by any stretch either. It's very much by the numbers and there is no real explaination offered about what triggered what happens. It had the potential to do something more with the premise, yet ended up playing it way too safe, and could have done with having an added element to give it more of a twist. Sadly, really there isn't any of that, and not a whole lot going on with the characters either.


Birds of Prey

Firstly to say that the AD did not work at this screening (it was advertized as such, but c'est la vie), so I am going to have to sit through this again. However, just from listening to the dialogue and sound etc, often without the context, it struck me that there are parellels and very much like a modern version of the 90's movie, Tank Girl (with Lori Petty & Naomi Watts) and while that wasn't a cinematic masterpiece it is a bit of a cult classic and that was made way before the advent of comic book adaptations and cinematic universes became the norm.

That said, there were flaws with that movie, as there are with this one also. The most obvious one would seem the way that every male character is downplayed, weak, compromised, misogynistic, or otherwise shown to be flawed, while the women at the centre of the film are all fierce, powerful and capable by comparison. Now, there are reasons for this, as the story is largely told through the perspective and narration of Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), as this is her 'emancipation' as she refers to it, to cut out on her own path away from Mr J, as a psychologist this could be projection through her warped world view, but that is only a theory.

That all said, I am going to have to sit through this again with working AD before am really in a position to judge this.



Back at it again today


Spycies

Although advertized, it had no AD, so there may be elements I missed, or misunderstood, but as a kid's film didn't think it would be super necessary to get what was going on. There is nothing really all that special here. Can't comment about the animation itself, but there are some tropes that have been seen time and time again here, such as the spy who doesn't want to a techy partner (which is exactly what the last animated film I went to had - Spies In Disguise) but in a anthromorphic world, and luike that film it is pretty forgettable. There are no characters that live long in the memory and while the story may aspire to have a more serious message about environment, it is all a bit of a mess, and certainly not a patch on a film like Zootropolis.


Like A Boss

The UK is still getting the leftovers from last year, but this was an advance screening of it's wider release next week here. TBH, there have been a lot worse comedies in the past couple of years than this. A film very much skewed to a female audience and it does have some appeal, even if some of the humour was a bit crude - don't know if Seth Rogan was involved but it wouldn't surprise me, as it does have the tone of some of his work, which I suppose is the perfect way to segue to Bad Neighbours co-star Rose Byrne, who holds her own in this, while Tiffany Haddish shows she has lost none of her comic flair, but it is Salma Hayek that steals jusg about every scene she is in, as the villian here. Not quite Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada, but still decent enough. It's not a classic by any means, but there are a lot worse out there, that's for sure.


Also...


Got to sit through Birds of Prey again, and this time with the benefit of AD, which did help to fill in the gaps that I previously had, but the general assessment remains. If Joker had The King of Comedy as it's base, then this movie has Tank Girl as its. As for my rationale that the idea of this group of women all being disproportionately badass compared to literally every male character is re-inforced and it makes sense, as it's not necessarily going to be a true and accurate accounting of the events that happened, but a shifted skewed view as it's all from Harley Quinn's estranged worldview perspective. For a comicbook movie of this type it takes a very different angle from the usual storytelling that we've become accustomed to from the MCU & DCEU. Like Tank Girl I can kinda see this becoming a bit of a cult classic, even if that means it is going to struggle to match the big box office that most of these comicbook movies are capable of drawing, as I'm not sure it's going to find enough of it's audience, but guess we'll find out soon enough.



Sonic the Hedgehog


Wasn't intending to hit the movies today, but the weather in Glasgow forced my hand with my daughter, so went to this. And it was a very crowded screening. Didn't exactly have high expectations going into this, and don't know if it is the AD that was inadequate or it just doesn't translate to description or that it is very visual but I could hear laughter often enough around me and yet I was left wondering what was funny. Even at the end a good percentage of the audience in attendance gave it a round of applause, which I cannot fathom why it was deserving of such acclaim. To me, it was... ok-ish. There have certainly been worse movies released, let alone worse movies based on video games, but that is far from a resounding endorsement. Am going to have to revisit this, because maybe I was missing something that was so apparent to so many in the screening, but to me there didn't seem anything too special about this. Again, maybe it's a visual thing, idk. At least it kept us out from the rain for a couple of hours, so there is that, lol.



Movie Marathon day... just because. Sat through 5 in total at the cinema today, including encores of Jojo Rabbit, The Gentlemen and Birds of Prey in addition to...


Emma.

So, this is the latest adaptation of Jane Austen's classic. I haven't seen all of them, but have seen a couple, including the 90's version with Gweneth Paltrow in the titular role. So whether or not it is fair, it's natural to compare as there is a metric by which to assess, as opposed to the novel version, as it naturally loses much of the intricacies from the pages to each screen adaptation. Should also preface this by saying that my overall opinion of Jane Austen has mellowed over the years, turning from despising to appreciating far more now. This was a fun take on the source material, but still has an edge to it, even if some of it is lost on me, once again because of the AD, whihc meant that missed out on obviously what must have been quite subtle visual moments when could hear the audience around me laughing, but it doesn't translate to 8-10 words in a audio description cannot do it justice, so some of what people did find funny in those moments was lost on me.

First off it should be said, that unlike the previous adaptations that I've encountered, there is no softening of the Emma Woodhouse character in an attempt to make her more likeable. This version is, to me, the closest to how I imagined the character back when I first read the book. Here, the central performance by Anya Taylor-Joy is played as not simply the meddler, but truly throughout the film as someone who always has that really nasty streak to her, just below the surface, and it works. Anyone familiar with the story (be it from previous versions or from the novel) will know what I mean when I refer to the picnic scene, that despite the laughs throughout the movie, that moment delivers, because it's not that it comes out of nowhere as is often the case with other versions, but that always aware that it is there, always lurking just beneath the surface, and even afterward, despite the tears and regret, that aspect to this characterization is still there. This was a really brave choice by both the actress and director, and one I commend it for.

The other notable performance is the ever enjoyable Bill Nighy in high scene stealing form here - not that he has a lot to do, but does he ever make the most of every scene, as Emma's father. These 2 performances are the stand out along with the adaptation of the script itself. On the downside were many of the other paripheral characters have been done better in previous versions. Just never really bought into them as much here, that while great care was put into creating this version of the Emma character that not as much attention was paid to some of those that populate her life.


Call of the Wild

And another classic novel given yet another big screen adaptation, hot on the heels of Little Women and Emma. And like both of those, this is a fitting adaptation, introducing Buck's oydssey to a new generation. The question is, does this work for modern audiences? Literally going up against the likes of Sonic, but while that is all light entertainment, this is a much deeper work, although perhaps not quite as brutal and dark as the Jack London original novel. Indeed, while in my review of Emma above, made note of how there was no softening of the central character to make her more likeable, here this is a key thing that they actively do, by not really underpinning the more feral, wilder path, as Buck essentially remains a 'good dog' throughout, even if the path does take to ultmately that same shared destination as it is in the book, and that is far from the only divergance.

The story is about a dog named Buck, who is 'dogknapped' and taken to the Yukon territory in the late 19th century, initially to be part of a sled team for the mail service before moving on from there. Thoughout encounters with both good and bad 'Masters', Yet while Buck does increasingly embrace the journey to the wild, he very much remains a 'good natured dog' throughout, as mentioned above. There is that sense of old school Disney in that way. It is quite the journey, mixing both light heartedness and genuine sadness throughout. Harrison Ford provides a steady relatable character for the audience as Buck's final Master; a wilderness man who has turned away from his family in search of isolation, and while that is good, the film never forgets that this is Buck's story and a decent adaptation at that.

I cannot comment on the visual aspects, how does the wilderness, the scenery and from what I've heard the use of CGI but those at the screening I was at seemed to be relatively impressed with this. But from the AD, no complaints on this front. Definitely one that I will be sitting through again in the next week or two.



Wed 8 January


The Gentleman

Guy Ritchie's films tend to end up on either end of the spectrum. When they are bad, they tend to be seriously awful (Swept Away, King Arthur etc) and then there are the good, they rend to be pretty damned good, qith few falling in between. After Aladdin actually surprised by being better than expected (by far the best of the Disney live action remakes of 2019, over Lion King, Dumbo etc), there was nothign that was distinctly about it that made it a Guy Ritchie film. However, the Gentlemen is a welcome return to the type of movie that he originally made his name with. It is fun, it's fast talking, there are some quirky characters. The story is far fetched but rattles along at a good clip and entertains. If you liked Lock, Stock... or Snatch, then you'll probably like this also. The AD was good and could easily sit through this again.




Jojo Rabbit

This is a classic example of why often need to do an encore or have repeated sit throughs. Originally sat through this as a preview screening, which did not have AD, so there were times when would hear people laughing or a gasp and I'd have no idea what was happening. So while I did enjoy it the first time through, having the benefit of this with the AD made it so much better to understand now and answered questions that I had from the first time sittign through it. With the added AD this may have now just snuck into my top 5 of 2019. Well written, the subject matter deftly handled, and strijkes a really good balance between the farcical and tragic.


As I posted in the dedicated Jojo Rabbit thread, Taika Waititi is putting together such a strong string of really good films to become one of my favourite directors and probably the pre-eminant comedy film maker currently working, such as what Mel Brooks and John Hughes were to the 70s & 80s etc.

I personally preferred the live action remake of The Lion King to Aladdin. I loved JoJo Rabbit and was thrilled that it won the screenplay Oscar.



I personally preferred the live action remake of The Lion King to Aladdin. I loved JoJo Rabbit and was thrilled that it won the screenplay Oscar.
I guess it comes down to personal choice, and do respect and value your opinion.

However, The Lion King remake for mine, sitting through it just sounded like it was an imitation of the original. Because I can't see the CGI/photorealism/visual aspect, it just seemed like a repeat of the same, in terms of dialogue, song and story. Had more effort been taken to differentiate between this, drawing on a wealth of details from the original source of Hamlet, perhaps it would have made more of a positive impression. As such, it left more of the same feeling I had after Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho, of what was the point of doing it, aside from making big stack of cash, which TLK obviously did.

Whereas, Aladdin did hit a lot of the same beats as the original animated film, which meant that it did resonate with those that wanted that, but integrated additional elements to the story and gave much better character development for Jasmine that it made that positive impression. It was able to do this while still making a big dent at the Box Office. Now there is no question that Robin Williams is a much better Genie than Will Smith, but that aside, there was that effort made to enhance the story etc, which Lion King opted not to do.



Brahms: The Boy 2


No, I didn't see the first installment of this, so have no idea if it is on par, better, worse etc. At least from relying on AD it wasn't that creepy or scary and don't know if the visuals do make it more. As for this film itself, well, It's... not great. Everything here has been done before in other films within the genre, even in recent times with the Annabelle movies and the reboot of Child's Play (though not nearly as creepy as the original from the 80's). Mostly, it is all pretty standard stuff here, although there was more potential at first when because of the trauma of being subjected to a house invasion early on, that it could have played on the ambiguity of it is real or just in her head, but this is dispelled very quickly and without that psychological element it really struggles to justify even it's modest runtime, as there is simply not enough here to even warrent the 90min it is given.


Greed

I cannot say if this was intended as a black satire of the controversial real life businessman, Sir Phillip Green, but it is very apparent that he is at least an inspiration for this film. Steve Coogan plays Sir Richard 'McGreedy' McCreedy - who on the surface comes across as somewhat likeable and not without charisma, yet is utterly ruthless in his dealings, thoroughly obnoxious and routinely does so many unlikeable and unethical things in amassing his fortune.

Set primarily in the days leading to his celebrating his 60th birthday with a lavish self aggrandizing party on a Greek island, the story also unfolds in flashbacks to earlier days, from early on as a student and his insatiable hunger for swindling and gambiing, right through to his foray into the world of fashion and high street retail and the many shady dealings that marked these and disregard for literally everyone who crosses his path, directly or indirectly.

There are in addition three other strands to the story being told; one about the exploitation of the workers in Sri Lanka, the second about a 'reality' tv show which is quite obviously completely contrived, scripted and staged and the other centres on a group of migrant refugees on the island where the party is being held, living on the beach who are 'spoiling the view' for the party to come, but have their own problems. So trying to weave these various subplots in with both the main storyline of the impending party as well as the shuffling back in time to different stages of his life and career, becomes the main challenge of director Michael Winterbottom's (24hr Party People, Welcome to Sarajevo) intent here.

To be completely honest it doesn't really nail it, or at least from my perspective and reliant on the AD on this initial sit through. It comes across a bit muddled and confusing to follow, at least for me having to rely on the audio descriptions as opposed to being able to see to follow the narrative. Admittedly, it may just be that I need to revisit this again as there was so much going on with the various strands but comparing it to say one of Guy Ritchie's better films, such as Snatch or The Gentlemen, that is able to juggle the various elements, the balance here doesn't quite seem to work as well.

That is not to say that it is without humour, but it seems to not quite know what it is. It is not the silliness of something like Zoolander, but it tries to ride the rails of both believable and unbelievable. There is a lot to digest here, and perhaps does try to tackle too much all in the one film - the proverbail biting off more than can be chewed, or how it is handled given the gravitas of some of the issues it tries to address without delving into aspects too much, but it is necessary for context and extent of the greed that drives McCreedy.

Overall, am going to reserve judgement on this as it probably does deserve to be sat through again as things may fall into place a bit better second time around than it did with this initial impression.





Plus...


As there have only been the 2 new releases this week, did sit through 3 other films once again in addition to the above:

Call of the WIld does stand up to repeat viewings for what it is - very much a Disney-fied version of the classic. Again, can't comment on the CGI work etc, but considering what they spent to make it, think it has a big task on it's hands to make back that outlay.

I get that I'm not exactly the target audience for Like a Boss, and while I would say it works ok on a single viewing, it doesn't really hold that well sitting through it again. For me at least. :/

Birds of Prey is definitely one of my more favoured DC films, because the more I think about it through the lense of my previously detailed theory in a previous entry in this thread about it, the more it catches, but I can understand why it's not doing as well at the Box Office, as there were definite mistakes made with it, both in terms of what the film itself is trying to be in addition to the executives mistakes in the scheduling.



Dark Waters

Although this film is not exactly treading any new territory (think Erin Brokovich or Class Action), there is a tone here that does strive to set it apart; that corporations (and not just the duplicitious Dupont but all corporations and chains havetaken deep rooted hold while the populacesleepwalk into the nightmare that is modern life, and poisoned for profit. There are times when it is genuinely scary, simply because of what is very apparent and yet is simply accepted, and while it begins with a preface set with skinnydippers in the 70's, the catalyst of events is set in the late 90's with a single farmer who raises his conspiracy theory about chemicals being in the local water suppl... a theory that ends up being proven to be completely true. And yet through the course of the film Todd Haynes paints the picture linking what was scientifically proven in the 1950's still is proving a public health menace right through virtually until today. Mark Ruffalo underpins this film with his central performance - which is not a million miles away from the characters he played in Zodiac & Spotlight, and is ably supported by Anne Hathaway (his wife), Tim Robbins (his boss)a mong others. Definitely worth checking out.


Downhill

I don't quite know what this film was trying to be. Apparently it is a Hollywood remake of a Swiss film, but as I've not seen that don't have that context. This dramedy is about an American family on s ski resort holiday and thigs go downhill from there following a particular incident when the father abandons his family when a planned avalanche of snow burries the balcony where they are about to have lunch. The problem is, the film doesnt know what it is trying to be and the tone is a complete mess. There are elements of the drama, pointed moments of disputes discussions but offset with the slapstick - and none of which is particuarly funny. Will Ferrell is way out of his depth. Yes, he has done dramedy before, but aside from that one act of cowardice it's hard to really define what he is trying to do with the character. The whole thing is a bit of a mess.



True History of the Kelly Gang

The title is completely misleading, as it is a quasi-historical account, taking significant liberties, omissions and additions to the Kelly legend. Having grown up in Australia, Ned Kelly is truly an iconic figure and has been the subject of quite a few tellings of his story. Indeed, bit of movie trivia - the first ever feature length movie at the beginning of the silent era was a film about Ned Kelly! So, how does this set apart? Well, it attempts to tell the story from juvenile to fully fledged bushranger, with some rather unexpected and rather bizarre claims, including depicting members of his gang dressing in women's clothes (so that those that they were fighting would think them crazy), and for a period piece the dialogue is completely off... indeed, it is probably one of the most profanity laden films I can remember in a long time just never really resonated with me.

From the audio description, it is clear that the director has a particular visual stylization for this version of the story to help set it apart, but this was somewhat lost on me. And the performances were decent enough, including Russell Crowe's turn as bushranger Henry Power (although think they gave him a different name in this movie) who takes a young Ned under his wing and introducing to the life of crime, but the characterizations vary wildly from known facts about the family, although special note to be of Nicholas Hoult and Charlie Hunnam as police troopers that have various run ins with the Kelly family over the course of the 15 years and that of Essie Davis as the hard as nails Kelly matriach, Ellen Kelly, even if, again, the characterization here is given some poetic licence to be even more gritty and nastier.


The Invisible Man

So, this plsys out as party psychological thirllier, part sci-fi and part mystery, but listening through the AD I never really felt that suspension of disbelief, surprised or mystified about the supposed twists. It does take quite a while to get to that though, as most of the first half of the film is a bit of a slow burn. Elizabeth Moss is cast well and is very much in her comfort zone here without really extending herself, as an every woman who has been in an abusive relationship and when we first meet her, she is making a break to get away from that. Shortly thereafter her ex apparently commits suicide to bring a false sense of security before her now invisible stalker gradually and increasingly interferes in her life. The premise is there to be sure, but thought the writing left too many unexplained plot holes as well as obvious conclusions to be drawn that make their reveals pretty underwhelming. I am guessing there is more that would play into it as a visual spectacle with the atmospheric pauses and silences but the AD left little to the imagination for me and made it all pretty obvious. I can only guess that the visuals make this movie what it is, but from my perspective not one I will be bothering to revisit any time soon.


Additionally...


There was another sitting through of BoP as a friend of mine who happens to work at the cinema had not seen it, but this one was done in Screen X. Not that it made any difference to me (although kudos for the crystal clear, static free AD). My friend described how the Screen X worked, not only on the screen in front but extending onto the walls right around so it has a 270° feeling as though being surrounded by the action. Although had heard of it, this is the first time I've known someone to get their first hand opinion on it, and while it was sounds like it would be interesting, it still strikes me more as something of a novelty rather than as a game changer in how to approach cinema, in her opinion.



Onward


Just to preface this by saying that the screening AD didnt work so there were times when I was lost. Even though it is a relatively simple story I was left confused at times, so will need to sit through it again with the added benefit of AD. The voice cast is fine but is it magical characters in a human world, I don't really get? My daughter was able to fill in some blanks, but the jury is still out on this one til can sit through it again properly.



Big day today... well yesterday now... 11am: Sacrilege 12.50: Military Wives 3pm: Fantasy Island 5.15: The Hunt 7.50: The Photograph


Sacrilege

First off, no AD, so can only speculate that about the horror visuals, but in all other regards completely forgettable. It's like someone watched Midsommer last year and thought... "we can do something like that really really cheaply",,, and proceeded to do it. The 4 women at the centre of the story are on a 'girls weekend, supposedly to reconnect with each other after a fractuious breakup between 2 of them had divided the group previously, but not that any of that matters, because it is never revisited again ever or delved into what went wrong. Anyhow, their trip takes them into a rural English community, lured by a hitchhicker on his way to a pagan festival... and you'll never guess what happens. Yes, seriously thats as complex as it gets. The dialogue is likewise equally as eye-rollingly cringey, with such lines like. "what's the worst that can happen?", "it's be a night you'll never forget for the rest of your lives" & "don't catch your death" delivered with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer by an array of mediocre performances. Maybe the visuals redeem this, but even judging by the soundscape it's as cliched as everything else here.


Military Wives

Should preface this by saying I'm probably not the intended targret audience for this, but even still, it's ok for what it is. Based on a true story of a group of women who being a choir while their husbands and partners are in the British Army, deployed in Afghanistan. There are the familiar tropes of then sounding completely awful and clunky and gradually finding their voices, along the way ploughing through a number of 80's hits. There are familiar beats that it hits that resonates with films such as Fisherman Friends, Brassed Off, Fully Monty, Sister Act etc. It is good that so often the sacrifices of these groups of people do get overlooked in film (We Were Soldiers is one of the few films I can think of off the top of my head that even touches on this as a subplot to the soldiers deployed in that film), and the strains of loss, the unknowing of what is happening and the strain this places on families and communities as a whole is given it's due. Kristen Scott Thomas is well in her element here as she possesses that cold aloofness while dealing with her own loss of a son on a previous tour of duty while trying to lead the group all too often at odds with the other members of the choir. Very much mother's day fare.


Fantasy Island

I have only vague memories of the tv show, of Ricardo Montalban and the short Tattoo with his catchphrase of "da plane, da plane", so don;t know how much of a reboot this movie is, but I genuienly associated it more with something that was family friendly... something that this film definitely isn't. Which I don't mind tbh, as it takes a previously established and takes it in a completely different way as it was previously presented but it is still plausable adaptation of the concept and still being able to standalone without needing that prior understanding. It did get a bit of a head scramble at times so will need to sit through this again because there were parts that has left me confused but perhaps that is simply me and trying to cisualize certain scenes based on the descriptions or the trying to untangle the dialogue, plot and twists, which perhaps will be clarified with sitting through this again. however the jury remains out for me on this one for the time being.


The Hunt

Where to begin with this... This is a real mixed bag and an intense one at that. It deserves credit for its ambition, but has a muddled way of trying to bring to shapr focus the evils of both ends of political exstremism in American society, highlighting the extremists at either end of the spectrum viewed by each other - of liberal elitists about redneck conservativists and vice versa. It borrows themese from movies such as The Most Dangerous Game while maintaining a strong Purge vibe. Of the shock of the first 15 minutes to the unfolding of the majority of the film. There is a social commentary here that it strives for but fails to deliver. It has something to say, but it's left to audience what that is.

There are good ideas here but not backed up well enough by the writing to really convey what they are. I can completely understand the controversy that has surrounded this film, given the number of politically motivated shootings that seem to be on the rise and in frequency, and this film does try to present a take in that discussion about the extreme of either end of that debate, but can equally imagine that some audiences will take things the wrong way and only further deepen the divide and resentment. One thing that was very clear though, is that Betty Gilpin makes for an impressive badass and carries the majority of the film, and the sequence at the outset of the Hunt itself is really startling and at times completely unexpected. I can only imagine the impact of what the visuals through that must be like, but from just the description it did it's job in making me far more uncomfortable than most of the horror films that I've sadly had to endure sitting through so far this year. I wouldn't call it a good film, but it deserves points because it does try to do something different, to go out on a limb, it just somewhat feels like it bit off more than it could chew. The pieces are there, the ideas and concepts are there; just wish it had been put together better.


The Photograph

After the intensity of the previous film and despite there being roughly a 45 min break between the end of that and the beginning of this one, it did take me a bit to work my way into this much more sedate romantic drama. It tells the story of 2 couples - Isaac and Christina in 1980's, and Christina's daughter Mae and Michael , a generation later, and explores themes of the 2 relationships - the ultimate ending of one, and the juxtaposition of the beginning of the other, the core personalities in transition in their own lives and in each others, with the photograph in question merely serving as the catalyst for sending Michael curious about who took the photo (Christina), only to meet her daughter, Mae, and goes from there.


On the plus side, all of the primary characters do feel fleshed out and developed, as the film progresses and all of it is underpinned by a blend of jazz and soul/R&B, which for the most part is indicative of which relationship is being explored at the time, but there are moments of crossover also. This score is well thought out and quite possibly the aspect of the film that made the deepest impression for me, but that could just be because I do have to rely so much on the music and soundscape to tell a story. On the downside, there are some big unexplained plotholes which does detract signicantly and likewise the chemistry between Issa Rae and LaKeith Stanfield, as Mae and Michael, which felt often more like friends than 2 people with a deeper love connectionm but that might just be my perception.



Good to hear your thoughts on The Hunt. I'm curious to see how wide of a spectrum the criticism on this movie receives.



I thought Sonic the Hedgehog would be huge box-office bomb, so I've been shocked by how well it's performed financially. It doesn't seem like a movie that would lend itself well to the viewing impaired. Call of the Wild, on the other hand, might've actually benefitted from you not being able to see that incredibly fake-looking CGI dog.

As before, I haven't seen anything you've reviewed lately except for Parasite, and I haven't even heard of some of these since I don't keep up with new releases that well. I'm looking forward to Birds of Prey mostly because I have the hots for Margot Robbie, but Tank Girl is also one of my favorite guilty pleasures, so your comparisons to it bode well. I didn't even realize until now that they'd made a sequel to The Boy. The original was mediocre at best, although it managed to surpass by extremely low expectations mostly on the ludicrousness of its twist.

Everything you've watched and reviewed in here has been at the theater, so I'm curious if you're able to watch older movies at home with AD. Is there a special version of the movies you have to buy or do some DVDs/Blu-Rays automatically come with AD?