Remarkable thing: in a movie stuffed to the gills with special effects and computer generated characters, it is only in the human moments—or at least almost-human moments—wherein the story’s real charm comes to life. I watched this and it’s sequel in reverse order, so I was at a certain disadvantage where some elements of surprise were missing; hence the story lacked some of what should have been its inherent drama. That said, the aforementioned dichotomy between the human interactions and the fake-play between the real and digital characters stands out here. One might almost believe that a movie such as this, if made the old-fashioned way, might be some untold amount better. Alas, it is unlikely we will see such efforts made any time soon, despite the potential for greater results (and, I daresay, better economics; all those special effects cost a lot of budget-bloating money). As for the story here, the makers almost but not quite pull off this re-imagination of the old tale into something that works. However good Jolie may be in turning Maleficent's character inside out, she still makes a better villain than a hero. And frankly, some of the plot changes make some story elements make no sense. For example: Why are the pixies welcome at the christening, when the introductory material so thoroughly vilifies The Moors and its inhabitants? (Also, they might want to get a grip on what kind of land the term “moors” refers to.) All in all, this is a decent diversion, so long as you didn’t pay money to watch it, but it hardly falls into the category of classic, enchanting entertainment.
Showing posts with label Lesley Manville. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lesley Manville. Show all posts
Saturday, November 18, 2023
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil
Except, not really...Evil, that is. Or so this movie would have you believe. In a way that makes some story sense; in the original Disney Sleeping Beauty, Ms. Horns causes all the trouble because she feels slighted. Perhaps she’s more “mistress of peevishness” than anything else. Anyway, the producer folks at the studio try to make her the hero here, or at least not the biggest problem in this outing. They had enough sense not to go overboard with it; as Old Mal, Angelina Jolie does not exactly gush or strike heroic poses—she just avoids being homicidal and sort of saves the day at the end, though not without a certain amount of destruction. The other characters—including Elle Fanning's Aurora, who is the only particular standout—do their things through various degrees of forgettable-ness, while the bulk of the story lives awash in computer generated visuals, up to and including the now typical of every fantasy movie climactic battle chaos. Really, story-wise it’s something of a muddle; perhaps that’s because I watched the sequel before ever seeing the original. (I blame the current chaotic streaming landscape.) Try this trick and you’re left wondering about the relationships between all these particularly M being A’s godmother (really, more like adoptive mother, but godmother sounds more storybook, I guess). Anyway, there are some decent scenes here, mostly involving Jolie and her work in the title character, and a few instances where the vibe of a real fairy tale does come through. I wouldn’t say this one casts any real spells, but it doesn’t curse you or put you to sleep either.
Labels:
Angelina Jolie,
Chiwetel Ejiofor,
Disney,
Ed Skrein,
Elle Fanning,
Family,
Fantasy,
Harris Dickinson,
Imelda Staunton,
Juno Temple,
Lesley Manville,
M,
MEOW,
Michelle Pfeiffer,
Sam Riley,
Sequel
Monday, July 5, 2021
Let Him Go
This is the sort of movie that a young person cannot watch, or at least cannot watch and really hope to understand. You need the perspective of passing years and advanced life stations in your personal background to really see the stakes in this story. The movie's strong side is its presentation, particularly in its early scenes; the film tells its story with clarity and economy, utilizing good visual and aural details and avoiding clutter to create a sense of time, place, and sensibility. The leads represent another strength; Diane Lane is both the film's emotional core--showing both determination and vulnerability in equal and equally important measures--and driving force (and she remains quite attractive, even playing someone's grandmother), while Kevin Costner brings his longstanding status as a symbol of fundamental decency to a role that, ultimately, might make the viewer wonder a bit about the real worth of such a character trait. The weakness of this film is almost existential in nature, specifically: what exactly about this story is supposed to make it appealing (or at least appealing enough that moviegoers will want to watch it)? There is an individual--or at least a familial--tragedy in the through lines of this tale...but how much impact can it have on the larger picture of life? The inherent warning about the dangers of this society's redneck subculture remains pertinent--a little too pertinent, in fact--but that's not exactly the sort of thing that gets audiences engrossed, other than with a certain contempt or revulsion. Honestly, if not for the star power of the leads, I doubt very many viewers would wish to bother with what is, ultimately, a dreary and somewhat depressing story. It's not bad, but it's probably a bit too heavy for most to take. Give it a shot if you're really into deep drama, but just know going in that you're not likely to walk away feeling good about things.Monday, July 2, 2018
Phantom Thread
A paean to epic fussiness. You don't see that every day. Nor, in the case of many moviegoers, should you. Those who are fans of stuffy English dramas will probably get their kicks watching this one, and I can certainly see some appeal in the work in and of itself. There are moments where the interplay between the characters really works and provides sharp entertainment. But the tale also comes with its limitations; the aforementioned fussiness leads the viewer to wonder if there really needs to be this much sturm und drang in the relationship. Maybe everyone should just chill a little bit. Perhaps the biggest surprise is that Daniel Day-Lewis does not overwhelm with brilliance in his role; he's good, and is probably incapable of a bad performance at this point, but his fastidious fashion designer lacks some of the energy that his previous and more successful roles brought to the scene. Only in moments does our man crackle with his usual power. And moments, alas, don't add up to a total movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)