Since I brought up acting, the cast is a phenomenal ensemble of familiar faces that delight. Standouts include Hugh Grant—cause of course, Charlie Hunnan, and Colin Farrel. They bring life to the film as they all play their parts to a tee. Grant appropriately chews the scenery opposite Hunnam, who plays the straight man as they lead the audience through the plot while being inner cut by everyone else. It's when Farrel pops up and elevates the mood with his relaxed demeanor, a feat only aptly described as an oxymoron, when everything is working at it's best. There isn't anything special about the cinematography or score, but they don't hinder the quality of the overall picture. There is a small story beat that ends oddly, but nothing else comes to mind when I think of egregious problems. In no way am I suggesting that The Gentlemen is without faults, but the enjoyment to be had far outweigh any slight transgressions that it may embody. I would consider The Gentlemen one of the best of the year. I know it's early, although I'll be surprised if I don't see it on my top 10 list at the end. It might just be a taste thing as the film doesn't seem to have universal praise; it indulges in very British vocabulary and mannerisms, which are aspects I adore. Though, it could also be that it's a Guy Ritchie movie, and his style isn't for everyone. All of these considerations aside, I cannot deny how much fun and charm this picture has. 7.5/10
I promise its incredible
Comments
While Bad Boys for Life won't offend anyone, at least I hope so, it doesn't inspire confidence in me. With this reboot shooting for the stars as it tries to become a regular series, it doesn't do a good enough job easing back in. Martin Lawrence was always the heart in the middle, grounding the movies in a ridiculous fake reality; by sidelining him, the movie slots into the emerging low-big budget category. This is where the John Wick series and many others reside as tentpole films have left studios with under $100 million budgets to share. The good thing is when Lawrence is on screen he does a great job being the comedic relief.relief. I can't whole-heartedly recommend this movie. While it does do away with Michael Bay's signature shaky cam and depicts action more clearly, there just isn't enough here. If you've already seen the award season movies, then this actually might be the slight fun you need if you're bored out of your mind. It's another old franchise that started in the 90s trying to modernize, what did you expect? 4/10
There was a shot where they forgot to set the muzzle flashes to screen and it was hilarious
It all comes together with the production design. You can see a lot of the money on screen as the different locations feel adequately dressed. Even the suits had an air of realism to them, something that usually doesn't happen in sci-fi movies. For some of these types of pictures, the CGI can be the weakest part with some low-quality stuff. But the VFX and all of that never looked bad. A large part of that success can be attributed to the dark setting, but that's an advantage. Not everything was perfect as editing and story suffered multiple times, whether that included cuts that obfuscated characters doing actions, or glossing over details. That compounded with characters not having motivations other than trying not to die. Usually, there are subplots to give people depth, which causes you to hope for their survival, something that is absent here. The cherry on top was the decision to kill the black guy first. That is a little bit of a spoiler, but it's such a crazy decision that I had to point it out. Overall, Underwater was watchable. If you find yourself needing something to see in theaters, then this could be it. I think that Kristen Stewart carries the film as the most interesting person involved. With its fairly derivative story, it's familiar but still rallies at the end. It's undoubtedly the best January horror movie I've seen. 5/10
I want the jacket that Kristen Stewart wears from the trailer
While it might have been Mendes' idea to make the movie in this way, it was Roger Deakins who actually achieved it. 1917 has Deakin's fingerprints all over it as his signature style is on display in every image. His choice to film with natural light sources leads to mesmerizing sequences that have been spoiled in the trailer. If you decide to watch this in the theater, it will be to see his work on a big screen. I say that because other than the incredibly high production value, there isn't much else to look forward to. 1917 fails to capture the human element of war. It does a great job keeping the audience on their toes as the one-shot presentation keeps the tension high. There are moments of fear, exhaustion, and hope, all of which blend thematically with the setting, but none give you the anchor into its characters. I need more than just a goal and a coherent plot to keep me interested. When I said it had tension and all those other things, I lied. It only had those elements for some of the time, as it mostly fell flat for me. The driving force of the story is for two soldiers to deliver an order that would save many lives. The importance of their mission is blatant but seems to fall on deaf ears as almost everyone they meet doesn't care. That message of indifference seeped through and became the stance I took. While the script tries to give these characters humanizing moments, not much of it stuck. This disconnect comes down to how they were delivered. I could see the gears turning in the background as scenes of tension would be invalidated moments later. When plot points were being set up and then never referenced again, it felt like they were just cheap tricks. It all comes down to what you appreciate about the art form. I like movies because they tell interesting stories about engaging characters. 1917 doesn't have that but instead offers a project that excels in production. The fancy camera sweeps, tracking shots, and set pieces offer visually stunning sequences that are enviable. While I didn't enjoy the film that much, I can recognize great work when I see it. 6.5/10
Without Roger Deakins, the movie would have been nothing special |
Categories
All
Archives
September 2020
|
RSS Feed
