Change Your Image
billjanes1
Reviews
Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Exhausted
A naive kid; a smart mouth princess; a devilish rouge; a wise and kind elder, two eccentric droids and a A naive kid; a smart mouth princess; a devilish rouge; a wise and kind elder, two eccentric droids - each of these contributed enormously to the success of the first StarWars.
Throughout this version, all-ey same-y characters contribute nothing. You could substitute one character for another and it would make no difference. The characters in this StarWars are not even a pale copy of the originals; it's a failure in that regard.
The wonders of digitalization aside, I pondered "How they could get those words to come out of the mouth of the deceased Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia)?" Tfhen I realized "Of course, they're just generic phrases. Her scene was likely performed for a previous sequel, picked up from the cutting room floor and used here." Much of the dialogue/story is like that. It's a movie devoid of interesting characters, but maybe that's because the dialogue is vapid. So, dialogue is another thing that sets it apart from the originals; it's bland and cliched.
The original took stock stories from Saturday morning cowboy shows and Saturday matinees and placed them in a galaxy far far away. Then, proceeded to make it all new. Today's StarWars galaxy is worn out. It's exhausted.
A take away: One John Boyega plus one Oscar Isaac do not make one Harrison Ford.
2hrs 20min preceded by 30 min of trailers and ads only added insult to injury.
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Too Long
I watched it. It's boring and tedious. It's slow. It wastes a lot of time with nothing.
My favorites are not given much to do. It just seems like three hours I wish I had back.
The plot is a ridiculous contrivance. The pacing is leaden. The actors look like they're through with it and glad to be done (Chris Hemsworth excepted). The characters seem less animated and ridiculous than I remember them being (in most Avenger films, there seemed to be a sort of shared agreement that this was all in fun, and, after all, shouldn't it be, it's just a movie. In contrast these seems to want to be more, but more what ... it never seemed comfortable.)
A movie like this is supposed to leave you invigorated and "Wow! That was fun!"
Three hours and one minute is too long for this kind of movie.
Gloria Bell (2018)
Doesn't go down dancing , though I think it thinks it wants to
Im a huge fan of Julianne Moore. She has terrific range, translucent expressions, terrific voice, beautiful smile, when required just right wrinkles in her forehead, moves like a doe, can do anything.
Anything but bring life to Gloria Bell.
I don't know what goes wrong or doesn't work here, but something and it leaves the viewer wondering why he/she spent 90 minutes watching it.
The plot ... well, there really is no plot.
The character development ... well, there really is no character development.
Where the character ends is pretty much were the character begins.
IF there has been some internal transformation, it was up to Julianne Moore's character to signal it and either the actress didn't or Im just too obtuse to have picked up on it.
Perhaps, the later: I remain a Julianne Moore fan, but this one passed me by.
They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Technical prowess, yes. Watchable, not really satisfying.
The film contains no drama, no storytelling, no dramatic arch.
The film uses archival footage and narrative from soldiers who were in conflict.
This limited the filmmaker's scope. While I have no doubt Peter Jackson did a marvelous job given the limitations in which he had to work, the limitations severely limited what the movie could be.
First, only scenes which were captured by contemporary cameramen could be used. (There were some drawings Incorporated into the story telling.)
Second, only narratives provided by soldiers were used.
Because the movie shots were primarily used for propaganda purposes, most include smiling faces, laughing and joking soldiers.
Because the narratives are those of survivors recorded decades after the war, most of the dialogue is distant from the action and mediated/moderated by many years.
The viewer feels at arms length from the movie.
Instructive and appreciated are the technical feats required to enliven the source material. That makes the film more "watchable", but does not make for a movie I would recommend.
Rogue One (2016)
Characters Plot Tension Action
The best Star Wars movie since the first one. A dozen or more clearly drawn characters; not a weak one among them. A plot and subplots involving family, comrades, rebels vs the bad guys, etc. Tension within family, among comrades, within the rebellion, within the empire, within and between some key characters. Action all over the freakin' place. The characters were all knew (at least to me) and seemed very real, multidimensional, gritty and driven. I invested in characters, their struggles, well-being, etc. In the case of the rebels, their objectives. The film makes you work to learn the plot and places - many new, some related to original Star Wars. The audience knows "the next chapter" and we want to know how we got there: This is the story of how we got there, how we got to the first Star Wars movie.
La La Land (2016)
Both sentimental and realistic is tough to pull off, but done well here.
Spoiler Alert I've done it! I've seen it! I confess I was looking forward to it and had great hopes. USUAL STORY LINE: B (trite but true) NARRATIVE ARCH: C (slow in places; jumbled fantasy flash of what could have been jumbles up the ending). MUSIC: B (serviceable, one terrific song). ACTORS: A+ (winning, fun to watch, masters of their craft, well-done). OVERALL: B+ Both sentimental and realistic. I liked it. Why? Because the story line is carried well by the actors who are consummate professionals, great to look at, move and sing service-ably. In numerous close-ups, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are just mesmerizing and flawless. They make it fun and easy to ignore the shortcomings.
Free State of Jones (2016)
A Story Well Told
The story of a man, his family and community with Mathew McConaughey, Gugu Mbatha-Raw & Mahershala as Southern pro-Union guerrilla leader, Newton Knight; partner, co-conspirator and wife, Rachael Knight; slavery and post-emancipation reconstruction leader, Moses.
The historical framework in which The Free State of Jones occurs. Truths include: Whites enslaved blacks. Whites emancipated blacks. Whites betrayed emancipation. Whites terrorized blacks and effectively re-enslaved blacks through Jim Crow. Laws were used to enslave, emancipate and re- enslave. In the 1960s, whites again laws were used to "free" blacks. Since then, whites have worked to reverse the legislation of the 1960s. Racism has been a central theme in American history. The film attempts to portray the life of one Southern man, Newton Knight, his family and community within this historical context. There is nothing the film can do to alter the historical realities. Because it does not attempt to, it has been criticized.
As a Southern White Male, I find the fact that the film doesn't attempt to alter the historical realities a cause for praise, not criticism. After a hundred plus years of propaganda like Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind, surely a propaganda film of another order is in order. But The Free State of Jones should not be criticized because it's not that film.
Free State is an "historical drama", told well, with exceptional acting, terrific cinematography and, I would argue, very good editing. I gave it 10 stars, not for what it wasn't but for what it is. A story well told.
The Revenant (2015)
Disappointing Yawner
Immediately forgettable, because no emotional connection is established between the characters and audience. As you are watching, you find yourself asking "Why isn't this working?" and, as you walk out of the theater, you're still wondering "Why?" One answer is the characters are single dimensional; another, the editing is confused, chopped. A third, scenes of nature, the outdoors, environment, locale, etc that should be integral to the emotions, but are not evocative, and seem to have been filmed, then interspersed periodically for no reason and to little effect. David Lean could use the locale to tell the story. This director cannot or does not. Im sorry to say these things, because I was really looking forward to the movie.
Noah (2014)
Noah interprets a dream to be from The Creator, receives a magic bean from Methuslah. It rains hard. Things go very badly.
"What were they trying to get at?" "Interesting?" "I couldn't follow it." These were the kinds of responses we used to get to some 'experimental films". I'd say the same about Noah. But the thing that my wife said when she leaned over about 45 minutes into the film seemed to sum it up for me: "This is pretty bad." Confused as to purpose. Tedious and often boring in its pacing. The dialog is flat to silly. Anthony Hopkins has three minutes, and he's terrific. Russell Crowe does an excellent Russell Crowe, but we probably were expecting Noah. Jennifer Connelly is lovely. Emma Watson always looks like a proper English girl - same here. The CGI figures are borderline silly - on second thought, they are actually silly. During a three-day period, we saw Noah, Muppets Most Wanted and Divergent. For what's in the theater here, now, I'd recommend either of the others over Noah. Noah simply isn't a very good movie. An "experimental film" maybe, but not a very good movie.