Da Couch Tomato

An attempt at a new layout, with horrible glitches, and very minimal knowledge of HTML.
Showing posts with label cate blanchett. Show all posts
"You're probably coming back as a Netflix series."

•Being the last film in a trilogy, I was expecting a cry-fest. You know, like what Toy Story did when it (supposedly) ended. There were a few scenes that could've unleashed tears, but they didn't come.

•The courtship scene of the two Furies, where they danced and flew in beautiful formation, kind of reminded me of the robot courtship ritual of Wall-E and Eve. Although of course Wall-E was set in space, but it was pretty much the same. It even had the same effect, making you go, "Aww, how cute! They're just like humans, but less horny!"

•I was hoping for more Kit Harington also, but he was relegated to one of the grownups like the one-legged Gobber (Craig Ferguson) and Hiccup's mom Valka (Cate Blanchett).

•For some reason, I enjoyed the villain here. So his name is Grimmel, and he's voiced by F. Murray Abraham, and you couldn't tell it was him because he used some kind of accent. He doesn't invite that much hate, compared to the previous film's villain Drago, voiced by Djimon Hounsou, who loved screaming his lines. Grimmel seemed smarter, more relatable, maybe because he actually used strategy, compared to Drago's brute force.

•The movie felt less animated, for some reason. I mean, except for the character designs, the details in this film tend to lean towards photorealism. The cinematography was great, as usual, since they used cinematographer Roger Deakins as visual consultant for all three films in this series (Deakins won an Oscar for 2017's Blade Runner 2049). He captured the bleak, dreary look of the Viking world quite beautifully, and I think the colourful huts compensated for the lack of color, even if it did remind me of third world slums.

•Okay, let's talk about TJ Miller. I know the guy's difficult to work with, which was the reason he was kicked out of HBO's Silicon Valley. But is an actor's work ethic enough to grant him something close to persona non grata status in Hollywood? I mean, I can understand if he gets a marked decrease in acting gigs, but it has to be something really serious if he loses a voice acting gig for a character he's already voiced in the previous two movies, right? Okay, I just Googled it, and apparently, TJ Miller has some sexual assault allegations on his plate. Tuffnut – I mean, tough luck.

•Just some minor nitpicking, but is it possible to have a sinkhole in the ocean? Isn't "sea level" supposed to be the lowest level for land that isn't submerged in the water? Because the "hidden world" referred to in the title, the ancestral domain of all dragons, can be found below sea level, but on dry land. I'm sorry, but that's just not realistic for me. Dragons I can suspend my disbelief for, but not that.

•I think it's a fitting ending for Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) and Toothless to part ways. A lesser franchise would've kept Hiccup and Toothless together until the end, like they were meant to be together. But Toothless is a dragon, and I appreciate how the filmmakers stayed true to the essence of dragons. These are majestic creatures, and they cannot be tamed, so it's a good thing Hiccup and Toothless parted ways as equals, not as master and pet ending their relationship.

•And on that note, I think the filmmakers did a good job of ending the series. Some film franchises give you a trilogy, then suddenly come out of left field with a fourth film (I'm looking at you, Toy Story). A trilogy in itself can sometimes feel like an obvious money-making venture, like how they forcefully stretched out The Hobbit into three films. But a good trilogy, when done right, can be a beautiful thing. How to Train Your Dragon as a trilogy was well done, and I really hope the producers leave the franchise alone. Any additions to this film universe should be done in the form of spin-offs, not forced continuations.

"Of course I have facial hair. I'm a Viking."



How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World. USA/Japan. 2019.



Original rating: 8.0/10
Stoic scenes: +0.1
Final rating: 8.1/10
YouTube

As I mentioned in a previous review, sequels are the bane of Hollywood. This is especially true of animated films, because children cannot discern good movies from bad ones, and will most likely drag their parents to watch anything with their favourite characters in it.

Or anything with wingsuit flying.

This, however, is not true for How to Train Your Dragon 2.

See? How can you go wrong with lots of warships?

YouTube

The Hobbit was a children's book which was made into an adult film, so this adult film will be reviewed like a children's book. Written by a child.


The Hobbit is a nice movie. It is very colorful. I like the grass in the Shire. It is very green and realistic. The pictures look very real, like the big HD TV in my parents' room. I can see almost every hair on Gandalf's beard. The 3D made me dizzy. When the dragon attacked in the beginning of the film, I vomited in my seat. My older sister said she is not taking me to watch 3D again.

My vomit is more colorful than the Shire.


*This is a review of the Extended Version, or Special Edition, or Director's Cut, or whatever they call this.


Nobody thought that J.R.R. Tolkien's beloved classic could ever make it to the big screen. That is, until Peter Jackson came along.

Saving a hell of a lot of money on post-production while at the same time preserving realism, Jackson employed old-school photography techniques, such as forced perspective. This also makes you appreciate Peter Jackson's intense pre-production work and storyboarding.
Sum up this film in two words: Classic Hollywood.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button leads the Oscar race with thirteen (13) nominations, and it truly is a cinematic work of art.

The screenplay was adapted (as everyone would probably know by now) from a short story of the same title by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Though the storytelling is quite clear, there are times when we sense the writers' hesitations on whether to focus on the life of Benjamin Button, or on the love story between him and Daisy. They could have focused on the love story all the way; all the incidental events would have been covered anyway.

There are others, however, who keep insisting about the obvious parallelisms between Benjamin Button and Forrest Gump. Now, while I would not deny that there are parallelisms, these parallelisms are not obvious, as some of you would state. Although both films are indeed penned by Eric Roth, Benjamin Button was co-written with Rob Swicord (and both Roth and Swicord are nominated for their adaptation). To state that Benjamin Button is a copy of Forrest Gump would be to belittle Eric Roth's talent, as well as underestimate Rob Swicord's input. Besides, the similarities never manifested itself as I watched the film, even though I knew beforehand of the Button vs Gump debate (sounds like a US Supreme Court case).

And that is because David Fincher did a marvelous directing job. Fincher treats this like a Hollywood classic, with brilliantly-designed sets as far as period films are concerned. Fincher also utilized the beautiful cinematography of Claudio Miranda, who did a great job of photographing the American South in all its splendor. My only problem was his consistency in treatment, with the flashbacks and the scratched film inserts not really providing much in the overall look.

Now in the acting department, what can you say with Cate Blanchett in front of the camera? Nothing. Just soak in Cate Blanchett's beauty. While the others can also soak in Brad Pitt's gorgeous mug, his performance is also noteworthy (as it is also nominated for an Academy Award). Most viewers would already know before watching that this is a story about a man who ages backwards physically, and the question on most people's minds is what about his wisdom? Does it age forwards or backwards? And the answer to that is in Brad Pitt's performance.

All in all, I would say that this may be the strongest contender for Best Picture, not because I really loved the film, but because this film conforms to the classical Hollywood template, which the Academy is a sucker for. Now unless the Academy's new composition has more radicals than conservatives, this film will most likely take home the Best Picture award, as the other epic dramas set in the South have done before it.


Rating: Nine out of ten stars.


The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director for David Fincher, Best Actor for Brad Pitt, Best Supporting Actress for Taraji P. Henson, Best Adapted Screenplay for Eric Roth and Rob Swicord, Best Original Score for Alexandre Desplat, Best Editing for Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall, Best Cinematography for Claudio Miranda, Best Costume Design for Jacqueline West, Best Sound Mixing for David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce, and Mark Weingarten, Best Makeup for Greg Cannom, Best Art Direction for Donald Graham Burt and Victor J. Zolfo, and Best Visual Effects for Eric Barba, Steve Preeg, Burt Dalton, and Craig Barron (whew!)

Hollywood never learns.

It all started with The Godfather. They made Part III years after the first two movies. Then they made the sixth Rocky flick. Then the fourth Die Hard film. And then they made the fourth Rambo film. It seems that when Hollywood decides to continue a successful franchise, it almost always doesn't agree with the critics. The only exception seems to be the Star Wars prequels, but that's because they are real legitimate prequels. The others are, well, money-making ventures. And this film is no different.

Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Spielberg, not because of the types of movies he makes, but because of his storytelling style. He is one of the few filmmakers I know who can tell a story really well just by the pictures alone. But sadly, his storytelling powers go to waste in this movie, as it practically offers us nothing new about the exciting archaeologist, who is actually the prototype for the Tomb Raider Lara Croft.

There is no shortage of action, as the film begins with a warehouse shootout in─where else─Area 51. That's already a foreshadowing tool, telling us that there will probably be an extra-terrestrial being later on in the film (and there will be). There is also a motorcycle chase with Indy and Shia LaBeouf, inside the university campus. Only in Hollywood will you see a motorcycle crash into a library.

Acting-wise, Harrison Ford seemed like he just went for a nineteen-year vacation, as his Henry Jones, Jr. character never changes from the last time we see him in The Last Crusade. Karen Allen reappears as Marion Ravenwood, who we last saw in Raiders of the Lost Ark, and her on-screen chemistry with Ford is the same as it was back in 1981. Cate Blanchett is, as usual, ravishingly beautiful, especially with that Russian accent, and her hair looks pretty good on her. John Hurt is amusing as the crazed out Professor Oxley. But the two best performances come from Shia LaBeouf, the greaser boy who is actually Henry Jones III, and Ray Winstone as the double-crossing Mac. LaBeouf has proven that there is more to him than a klutzy heartthrob, and there will definitely be more roles coming up for this actor. Ray Winstone, meanwhile, shows his brilliance once again, and since Spielberg loved his performance in Beowulf, Winstone might just appear again in the upcoming Tintin flicks. Let's just keep our fingers crossed.

Meanwhile, watch this film if you are a fan of Dr. Jones, or watch it if you are a fan of action and adventure movies. Do not watch it if you want to be blown away, because you most probably won't.


Rating: Three stars.




You might also want to check out the review of Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Would one consider this as a sequel to the first Elizabeth film back in 1998? You could, if all you consider is the fact that Cate Blanchett still plays the title role, and that it basically picks up from where the last movie ended. But honestly, I wouldn't want to consider this a sequel, in the same way that I didn't consider "Simba's Pride" to be a sequel of "The Lion King".

The film falls short, despite the brilliant performances by Cate Blanchett and the grizzly Clive Owen (Geoffrey Rush once again gives subtle top-notch acting). I would attribute this to the lack of outdoor shots with several hundred extras---these are the types of shots that draw you in, especially if the costumes are accurate. In this case, the costumes are indeed accurate, but there are less people wearing them. What makes Elizabethan England believable is not the nobility but the regular people. We may have long shots of the Thames and of the Spanish armada, but these are computer-generated images. All the live actors are confined to indoor shots. It was only after watching this film that I've come to realize that it's the extras that make an epic.


Rating: Three and a half stars.
Premium Blogspot Templates
Copyright © 2012 Da Couch Tomato