Another Big Bag O' Reviews

I don’t get why they changed the title in the UK either. Weird.

Best thing: The fox character. Unlike the endless optimism of the protagonist, the fox is very cynical and it's interesting that it is a cynicism that has developed in response to prejudicial treatment including ritual humiliation.

Worst thing: Zootropolis is clearly supposed to be a comedy, but frankly its not very funny. Zootropolis involves a lot of different background details, some beautiful artwork and some great world building. But I didn't find much that made me laugh. (I wasn't tickled by the sloth scene, I'm afraid.)

Very nearly a good film, but this is a film I found more interested in its visuals and its message than in really pulling me in. I'm glad the humour worked for other people, but I wasn't all that impressed. (Is it me, or did Idris Elba have the best jokes?)

Of the recent 3D animated, non-Pixar Disney movies, I'm surprised to find that Tangled is still the one that appealed most to me. Wreck-It Ralph appealed to me a lot, but when it became stranded in a sweet-themed Mario Kart world I felt it lost its way. Frozen annoyed the hell out of me with its terrible songs, yet while Tangled also had that issue for me, I really loved the abusive mother connection between Rapunzel and the main villain. Also, in Tangled, the horse was BRILLIANT. (Actually Big Hero Six was Disney, so I guess that's actually my favourite.) But Zootropolis? Yeah it was fine. Nice world-building, but I could have done with more effective humour.

C+

Best thing: While the ending felt a bit sudden, the ambiguity makes for some interesting interpretation as to whether the wife needs to reanalyse their marriage or whether she is being unnecessarily paranoid.

Worst thing: It feels like we ought to be going to be returning to the location of the protagonist's youthful love affair. That wait ended up being in vain. That's not a terrible problem, but I felt the actual direction of the film left it essentially stopping dead without a particularly clear resolution.

While there are some awesome performances here, the story is pretty low-key. There are really interesting ideas under the surface, but that's generally where they remain.

The subtlety is both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, the premise is fascinating and there are great messages about the nature of very long term relationships and raises questions about regrets and compromises in love and life. But on the other hand this is not a film with much of a plot.

B+

Best thing: The film creates a Star Wars-esque world with a chosen one and a evil villain evoking Nazi authoritarianism. Within that framework there's plenty of inventiveness.

Worst thing: The characterisationis mostly pretty thin, so the movie's attempts at emotional moments really don't work. The scene where the ship dances with the space stingrays dragged particularly badly, especially because of the cheesy music.

I can kind of see the Joss Whedon touches in this science fiction cartoon movie but overall the more charming moments can't quite make up for the unengaging vocal performances or the general feeling of naffness.

C-

Best thing: The colourful visuals. The filmmakers were clearly making maximum use of colour and so everyone is brightly coloured and there's a wonderfully distinctive style.

Worst thing: My goodness this is so ridiculously cheesy! And things really go off the rails when King Richard has to engage in a sword fight against his own palace guards. Much of what characters say about divisions between Normans and Saxons or about freedom of individuals is really so anachronistic, and yet so sincere, as to make it incredibly hard to suspend disbelief.

I received a recommendation for this film from two separate sources both around the same sort of time. One was the podcast "The Canon" and I've forgotten where the other recommendation came from. I've enjoyed older films quite often. I loved Casablanca, M, Double Indemnity, Citizen Kane and I even prefer the original Scarface to the version with Al Pacino. But while Adventures of Robin Hood was sweet, it was incredibly dated.

I know historical accuracy shouldn't be too important in a film like this, but it's incredibly frustrating. I mean, sure, King John made a lot of mistakes and the poor probably suffered under him like they did under most kings, but he wasn't the overbearing tyrant he is made out to be here. Eventually he'd be forced to sign the Magna Carta, which ended up being one of the most important human rights documents in British history. It established habeas corpus, the right not to be imprisoned without trial. In the  this would result in slaves being able to gain freedom simply by walking on British land.

Also the Norman/Saxon rivalry seems out of place. The royal family had been Normans since William the Conqueror since 1066. By the 13th century it's not really a central issue anymore.

And Richard The Lionheart returning?  Give me a break! He got out of Britain as soon as he could. He returned to France a few times but he had no interest in returning to England. Portraying this warrior from the Crusades, who actually mass-murdered prisoners of war, as the absent 'good king' is beyond absurd.

Robin Hood Prince of Thieves was clearly inspired by this film, particularly in the scene where Robin fights Little John at the river. But, as much as I didn't think Prince of Thieves stood up at all well last time I watched it, I can't help but feel that it improved on the original. Heck, Alan Rickman alone helped to improve one of the weakest aspects: the villain.

Adventures of Robin Hood is an sweet little film, but it's very dated and not really a film I'd recommend.

C-

Best thing: The film is set in the past and in the present and the parts in the present were brilliant. Charlize Theron is fantastic as the grown up massacre survivor, Corey Stroll is fantastic as the brother convicted of the murders, and Nicholas Hoult is great as the "kill club" organiser who is obsessed with solving old mysteries.

Worst thing: The resolution of the mystery felt far-fetched to me. A deal is struck between two characters which felt a little hard to swallow.  

Charlize Theron is a fantastic actress. Like with the movie Young Adult, she plays a bitter and somewhat selfish character, though with her character's childhood trauma the attitude is more understandable here.

This film is an adaptation of a book from the same author who wrote Gone Girl and personally, I much preferred Dark Places. The characters felt more relateable.

I don't really understand why this hasn't received more positive attention. It's a star-studded adaptation from the director that brought us Sarah's Key and while Kristen Scott Thomas' powerful screen presence gives that film the edge, this is a very capable follow-up all the same.

If anything the problems would seem to lie with the original story. In a investigation into a mystery like this, the solution needs to pay off. Perhaps with less flashbacks and more present-day detective work this
could have been more satisfying?

B+

Best thing: I'd forgotten how well the Rollerball games are portrayed. They don't have Tom Savini to splatter the arena with gore, but we get some serious violence all the same. How did I forget about the bit where one of the sportsmen is set on fire? But what really makes the games work is the way the drama surrounding the games builds the tension. (Rather like with real life sports I suppose?)

Worst thing: In the end, as much as I love dystopias, the one set up here doesn't entirely convice me. The treatment of women is one that I struggle to accept. In this world an 'executive' can arrange to be given an ordinary person's wife if he wants them. Major female characters in this film are almost always employed to spy on the protagonist so it's difficult to understand how they experience the dystopian regime.

I'd say that this was the real inspiration for The Hunger Games. A highly politicised sports game intended to distract from real life oppression and to send a message to the people about their own powerlessness.

While it's a very cool vision of the future, they didn't need to spend so long on building up that world. Rollerball feels way too long and not all the scenes outside of the arena were necessary to immerse us in the world. While I really like the scene where Jonathan goes to see the supercomputer, I do not think that scene was good for the pacing. With a runtime of over two hours, I think someone needed to trim some of the fat off this film.

Still Caan is awesome in the lead role, the games are really well handled and frankly it's insane to me that the remake was such utter trash. (I made the mistake of seeing the remake in the cinema.) With newer more expensive effects they could make the arena scenes even more spectacular. Then again they'd also need the emotional aspect to keep the audience on board. Who could fill James Caan's shoes?

B+

Best thing: Michael Shannon plays a complete scumbag. In the very first scene he is basically joking about a suicide victim, with the dead body right in front of him. But Shannon gives this character real depth and at times he even becomes someone who we could almost admire for his ambition and drive. Though he's still very much an opportunist making money out of taking people's homes. A perfect villain.

Worst thing: Our protagonist really feels like he should have made more of a fuss when he crossed a serious line towards the end. Sure, he's conflicted, but there should have been an argument over it.

99 Homes is an absolutely gripping tale of a man corrupted by an unfair system. When Michael Shannon evicts his family, Andrew Garfield finds himself working for that same man. Ironically working to evict others from their homes just to get his home back.

The drama is driven by the characters and that is what makes it an so exciting. After the global recession, Shannon's villain is fantastically poignant. Gaining the world through exploiting the losses of others and thus losing his soul, only to lure Andrew Garfield down that same path.

(Side note about Garfield. This is quite a different performance from in the Spider-Man movies. But you know what wasn't all that different from his Spider-Man performance? Tom Holland in Civil War. Andrew Garfield set the mould for Peter Parker and I wish he were given more credit for that.)

Also a shout out to Laura Dern. I hear there are some who have never rated her as an actress. Hopefully with her recent roles in Wild and 99 Homes they will be changing their tune? (Personally I've always thought she was wonderful in Jurassic Park.)

The ending isn't all that satisfying, but I don't think it's supposed to be. It left me thinking a lot and that may actually be a strength.

99 Homes is a very strong drama which I highly recommend.

A+

Best thing: The opening of the young Mr. Fantastic building his own teleporter (with a device that including N64 parts for some reason). The friendship between two kids trying out this incredible machine felt like something akin to the recent Stranger Things series. I must also point out that the villain, who is like a cross between Tetsuo (from Akira) and Darth Vader, going around blowing up people's heads is pretty great too.

Worst thing: The end scene where they have an incredibly badly written exchange where they choose their team name. Ugh!

Okay, so Josh Trank's first movie since his debut "Chronicle" is a mess. But then again Kate Mara's scenes wearing a blonde wig are a clear sign of how many late reshoots were involved.

The film feels drained. Trank never really lets things go off the rails, so this isn't a terrible blockbuster in the vain of a Transformers movie or Highlander 2. It's more of an indie movie problem. It's a bit slow and a bit dull.

While this is pure speculation, I think I know what the original plot was. I think the original film had more character moments and that the drama came from them being exploited by the government.

I think the response of Victor Von Doom when he leaves the other world is partly due to seeing how his colleagues are being treated. Perhaps particularly Sue, who he had a crush on. (What with Mr. Fantastic having left to work on a cure, that would mean we'd finally see what Sue really thinks of him, instead of just hearing the jealous comments towards Mr. Fantastic earlier.

Von Doom is unwilling to allow himself to be exploited (as was set up earlier). He isn't attacking the four because he sees them as victims, but he does attack the father because he sees their exploitation as a result of him betraying them. If we'd seen more of the exploitation from the government before Von Doom's arrival, the massacre he enacts might seem like overblown revenge instead of pure evil. In the final film his motive is unclear and I think that is because his motive is cut. We know he chooses to ditch our world in favour of the new world, but there are definite seeds sown to set up that change.

I think the anti-government sentiment along with the horrors of coming to terms with dramatic nightmarish changes to your body is what is missing here. Perhaps I'm wrong, but the first half seems to care about character in a way that isn't paid off in the second half.

Frankly this was still more enjoyable to watch than Man Of Steel. Everyone has more personality than Superman did in that film. But this is clearly a severely compromised work that had a lot of missed potential. And even sadder, the failure of this film has dampened plans to experiment with superhero concepts in ways which deviate from the source material.

With Chronicle Trank had already created one of the better superhero movies and I hope his misguidedly honest tweet doesn't prevent us from seeing more great films from him in the future.

D+

Learning about Scientology is always horriying. After watching a few docimentaries on Roman Catholic abuse scandals you wonder how Scientology could really be any worse. And certainly if you go to Islamist extremists groups and see IS training young children to be bloodthirsty monsters, it's clear that there are worse religious groups, but still Scientology is way scarier than it has any right to be.  

I hadn't ever heard the therapy ('auditing') sessions explained this well before. As well as explaining the problems of Scientology, the appeal of the religion is also expressed pretty clearly too.

This documentary also explains how significant granting Scientology religious status had. If they didn't get tax exempt status, all their assets combined would only have accounted for 1 quarter of the bill they were facing. It would have destroyed them.

They fought for tax exempt status by getting their members to bombard the IRS and IRS officials with endless lawsuits. When they discovered that just recognising Scientology as an official religion would be enough to stop this, the IRS gave in.

The FBI had been investigating Scientology for forced labour and human trafficking. But when a court case regarding these same issues was dropped on the grounds that the activities being referred to were legitmate elements of the Scientology 'religion', the FBI also dropped their investigations. It's horrifying!

We also get a lot of interesting interviews with L Ron Hubbard along with revealing interviews about the man. The religion has been run by David Miscavage (seemingly progressing into a kind of Stalinist style of leadership) since L Ron Hubbard's death, but Hubbard's approach has shaped what the religion became.

It's amusing to hear that the ex-Scientologists were dumbfounded by the insane 3rd rate science-fiction mythology for the Scientology religion. Yet interestingly the bizarreness of the mythology became a further source of guilt and anxiety. By the time they receive this mythology they are so invested in Scientology (and let's not forget the high fees for auditing sessions) that they can't really laugh away the 'secret information' the Church of Scientology hands to them.

This is a fascinating documentary and everyone should check it out if they want to know how Scientology works and the extent of the harm the organisation causes.