Change Your Image
shamrock_d
Reviews
Dunkirk (2017)
Visually and aurally emotional, gripping and pulsating
I really liked Dunkirk. I consider it one of the best movies (if not the best movie) of 2017.
I have never gone to see a movie because of a director or any particular actor. Frankly, this is the first time that I have learned of the "fame" of Thomas Nolan and the movies he made. I loved "Interstellar", liked "inception" and not once did I notice Thomas Nolan's name. "Dunkirk", I feel, surpasses both.
I saw the movie in an IMax cinema. I'm glad I did and, frankly, I'm glad too that I read some of the positive and negative reviews here on IMDb. They prepared me for the non-linear progression of the movie, the loud, booming soundtrack, lack of character development as well as no central character or a story line / plot. Yes, I saw all of these "faults" but, for me, these were the very things that made the movie so compellingly emotional and gripping.
Dialogue was minimal but the little that was said contributed very nicely to what the movie was trying to convey. Much of the movie's message was through the visuals and the soundtrack. The facial expressions, body language, the planes' and ships' "roles", the simple acts of eating slices of bread and jam and the subdued reading of Churchill's words all contributed to the montage. You could actually "see" the words, feelings and agonizing decisions going through each character's eyes and the actions they took. The flashbacks connected the three "central" groups that culminated in the final result.
Somewhat surprisingly, even to myself, I found the lack of numbers in terms of soldiers, ships, boats and planes appropriate to the feel and atmosphere of the film. It conveyed to me the sense of desolation and being alone despite even the few hundred that we see standing around on the beach and pier.
I noticed too the lack of CGI which, for me at least, made it so much more true to life. Some negative reviews asked where the production money went. I believe quite a bit of it must have gone to the sinking of actual ships and boats or, at the very least, full-size props in broad daylight and not behind a screen of smoke, fire or the dark of night. As a result, the sinking and drowning of men trapped in compartments or under a capsizing ship felt so horrific and intense. For me, again, the sinking of the Titanic was nowhere near as good.
Thinking back, too, not once did I see the face or uniform of a German soldier or pilot. This obvious omission actually adds to the primary focus on the soldiers and ordinary people involved in the struggle of survival and rescue at Dunkirk.
I've seen a lot of plane and space ship crashes which, while dramatic and life-like, are still obviously a result of CGI. If the planes ditching and the ships sinking were CGI, they must be the best I've seen.
A quick Internet search does show that CGI was kept to a minimal. Some 60 real ships (some actually from WWII) were found and they had to coordinate these ships driven by real people in the scenes. The RAF fighters and Messerschmitts were real and flown in the air battle scenes.
Let me quote from an online article from the Independent UK: "Everything happens in real life in real time."
It's obvious then that the producers and Thomas Nolan could have very easily expanded the number of extras, boats, ships and planes with CGI which they chose not to use. I'm glad they didn't. I'm not saying they used none but they did say they kept it minimal, the result being keeping it seamless and very real. CGI, while impressive in its own right, is in the end to all movie-goers, discernible. I've always had a slight tinge of disappointment when I see this, though I still enjoy the movie.
Dunkirk is not a war movie. Don't go and see it if you're expecting one. It's about survival, emotions and life-or-death decision-making. Dunkirk provided the location (actually shot there) and the situation. The producers should have said in their trailers and on their posters that this was not a war movie.
I went to see the movie with my sister (the first in the last 10 or so years) and a couple of her friends. Except for one of her friends who felt there should have been more of a plot, we were totally engrossed in the roller-coaster of emotions, visuals and the sound track. The cinema was 80% empty (for which we were actually glad) and only one viewer left early (a young man in his 20's). One movie-goer actually clapped at the end. I didn't, though I was tempted too and would have meant it if I did.
It was a sense of peace that I felt when I looked into the face of the pilot, knowing that the right decision had been made.
As a final note, I would like to quote again from the online article of the Independent UK: "Everyone on set was permanently aware and alert – no one was looking at their cell phones or sitting around. They were all completely absorbed in the action ..."
A Family Man (2016)
A good story about the values that modern society seems to have lost
As I was watching this movie, it occurred to me that the story line could be one that professional critics would not like. After the credits rolled, I went online to read.
As expected, yes, many users or viewers enjoyed the movie as much as I did. We knew what lines the story would follow - the father obsessed with work and career, the loving home-based mother, the lovable, neglected children who yearn for their often physically and emotionally absent father's affection and attention. As expected too, most professional reviewers had nothing much good to say about it.
Yes, all totally formulaic but the way it was handled in "A Family Man" made it a very enjoyable and emotional ride with excellent performances from each of the actors. Max Jenkins, as the son Ryan, put in a particularly outstanding performance with a subdued, yet subtle portrayal capturing the emotions that made for a perfect buffer to Gerard Butler's loud, overbearing headhunter-father persona.
Each role was played with a small twist that separated them from what we would expect from a family drama. Absent were all the screaming, loud sobs and yelling other than a few which were short and aptly done.
Doctor Singh was a nice touch, adding again a more subdued and yet heart-warming approach to the usual on-screen doctor stereotypes. Despite the much-criticized formulaic script, the trips outside of the hospital gave us a deeper insight into the father-son relationship and how it develops very gradually and even almost imperceptibly.
Of special interest too were hospital scenes that were bereft of the usual gut-wrenching scenes of the pain of treatment. The one solitary emergency scene was short and nicely cut at the right time without the extended flurry and scurrying that ER scenes entail.
I was happy to read a viewer describe how he and the audience in a fully-packed theater gave a standing ovation at the end of a screening, which goes to show that professional critics in general may have become possibly too cynical in their outlook and what stories and movies about life should be like and, in so doing, distancing themselves from us, the people in the street. How many of us do not follow the general formula for life - childhood, education, work, getting married, raising a family, leaving a legacy? If viewers want a story that helps remind us of what we face in life and some of the values that we may have temporarily put into the closet, see this movie. Just don't expect too much. Immerse yourself in the characters.
In the end, too, we are reminded that what goes around does come around.
I thoroughly enjoyed it and it brought me much clarity as well as food for thought.
Closer to God (2014)
"Human cloning" elicits ...
expectations of "ah ha, the first human clone" which should bring some earth-shattering, new expose on the science of cloning - achieving what no other scientists have been able to do. Of course, we have to throw in the usual moral issues associated with cloning a human but here, in this movie, things were treated rather differently.
Yes, there were the elements I mentioned above. The science was mostly hinted at and not in detail, which made me think at times what the story was supposed to be telling us. What gradually grew to make me like this movie was the tug-of-war between cold, unfeeling science and the love that exists for family and human life, especially that for a newborn so much so that, in his compassion, Victor, the genetic scientist, withdrew from what he later regrets not having done, which later culminates in hurt and pity.
Shades of Frankenstein the movie may have on the surface but it deals with deeper issues that influence and torment the different characters in the story - Victor the scientist, his assistants who, in one way or another, add to the mix of his work and the moralities involved, the tormented misgivings of his caregivers who trust and place hope in Victor's decisions which came too late, his wife who is also torn between her compassion and revulsion, and the safety of their own two little girls who are innocently caught up in the machinations. All of these add up to a nicely-blended mix that pull at our sympathies and yet horror at what we see coming. Last, but not least, is Victor's failed experiment which also tugs us both ways with fear and then the hurt that comes from the need for human closeness.
This is a movie that elicits expectations and depending on what these expectations are, it is little wonder we read the extreme poles of ratings and reviews among users and critics.
I, for one, enjoyed it. The low budget did hurt it a little, like the somewhat thin group of protesters. A bit of camera work attempted at giving it more substance with the illusion of bigger numbers, which did not work too well. What was done well were the close-ups of individual protesters that illustrated the hate and fear invoked.
Whether, in this day and age, people would come out to protest human cloning, we only have to look at the numbers coming out (on both sides) on the issue of same-sex marriage.
The lighting and camera angles, close-ups and deliberately out-of-focus scenes helped contribute to the mystery and suspense.
I also liked the added touch at the end on human evolution, though the science was not explained. It is, after all, sci-fi and we have seen throughout history that sci-fi has a way of becoming reality like those from Jules Verne and a particular communication device used in a classic star voyaging series that has survived for half a century to this very day.
Overall, a very good effort despite its low budget and thoroughly enjoyable (for me).
Outcast (2016)
Could be really good if only ...
the hero in the story weren't so dumb saying and doing inexplicable things. Once in a blue moon he gets smart and then the very next moment we find him doing something or going somewhere that any viewer can see from the way the script is written he's going to fall into a trap or something bad.
Along with this, there are the inexplicably long walks through darkness where any normal person would turn on the lights and the extended lingering on certain objects, scenes or eyeballs that contribute little or nothing to the plot and story line except perhaps to add lots of padding to what little happens in that one episode. I saw and felt no horror with all this lingering on particular scenes --- just boredom and frustration.
It makes one think that the scriptwriters are deliberately adding all these unnecessary --- not even bits and pieces --- but huge unrelated chunks to milk as much as they can out of the script. Season one could have have been half a season but it's been stretched like adding sugar and water to orange juice. The same goes for the pacing and content of the show --- just too many unnecessary parts that could have been dispensed with.
It took patience for me to reach around episode 6 before I started getting some sense of who's who or what's what and where the story might be going. By that time, I thought my patience had finally paid off and when things started getting interesting, the stretching started again.
By the end of the season, we don't even know if it's something demonic, alien or maybe even a mix of both.
It seems this is a trend among quite a number of TV series where we have people doing and saying things that have little or nothing to do with the story line nor giving relevant insight into the personalities of the characters other than to waste time. Outcast looks to have outdone the other series in this aspect.
My thought at the close of the season finale was I didn't want to come back for season 2 for more of the same. If the show continues with these over-stretched tendencies without substance, I doubt very much it will last long.
The show still shows promise if it can become tighter and more to the point. They can keep the mystery but the pacing needs improvement.
One more thing: the finale of season one ends with another inexplicably badly thought out act especially since it was explained earlier that wherever the hero may go he will be attracted to like a point of light in the dark. I saw right away what was going to happen the very moment the last scene started.
Fantastic Four (2015)
I thought it was going to be bad.
I thoroughly enjoyed it.
I have always been a Fantastic 4 fan since their early comic days and when the first Fantastic 4 movie came out, I loved it. My comic heroes came alive on screen doing the things they always did.
I can understand comic fans getting mad because it was probably too much of a departure from the heroes they learned to love. When I first saw the trailer, I thought: "Oh no, these are not the Fantastic 4." However, when I started watching the movie, I found myself drawn into their early years growing up with their ideas and dismissal by the rest of the sane world around them but nevertheless hanging on to their dreams.
Despite the slow pace of development of the plot and characters, I never felt bored, luckily I guess for the fact that I also like good drama and the deeper aspects of science fiction - teleportation, inter-dimensional travel and alien forms of life (in this case, energy or life force).
I liked the way how Dr. Doom came to life and the ingenuity of the Fantastic 4 in the way they defeated him. Short, yes, it was and likely did little to satisfy action fans who went hoping to see the old Fantastic 4 in extended action or in the genre of other sci-fi action movies like the Avengers, Thor, etc. I don't blame them.
I admit, however, certain parts were rushed particularly towards the end. One very obvious part is where Franklin Storm dies under the hand of Doom. It was too quick and illogical - Doom leaving the others while killing Franklin Strom with no hesitation whatsoever. That (and some other parts of the script) could have been done better. It could be keeping to a schedule to finish the film or some budgetary pressure to end the filming.
Despite the faults here and there, I admit I enjoyed the movie and probably even more than the first installment as it was, yes, darker with more drama and sci-tech thrown in - a mix that appeals to me.
As one reviewer put it, this movie builds a solid foundation for the future and, the way I see it, the potential for a good TV series along the lines of Minority Report.
Dragonheart 3: The Sorcerer's Curse (2015)
Not bad at all
Yes, probably nothing will compare to the first Dragonheart but this was a good attempt and, in most part, stayed true to the spirit and theme of the original.
A few things could have made this sequel even better - better development of the relationship between Gareth and Drago, use of the original name "Draco" (or was there some copyright issue?) and a more convincing performance from Gareth awakening to the Old Code.
It was great, though, that the original theme music was kept because for us who "grew up" with Dragonheart (though I'm over 65), the music speaks of the valor and virtue of the spirit of knighthood in Dragonheart.
I would have liked to see the return of Draco with memories of the past (perhaps, again, copyright issues?) that plays into the plot. I was rather disappointed to see the new Drago as completely new and there was no explanation why he landed on the earth as a shooting star with dragon eggs to boot. I guess it boils down to dragon's having to be born on this earth and not in the stars.
I was also disappointed that the new Drago could not speak until he gave away half his heart to Gareth. I was expecting (and hoping) to hear a voice closely resembling that of Sean Connery to come out from Drago. When he did speak, I was a bit disappointed but mostly relieved. It was only at the end credits that I knew it was Ben Kingsley. I feel the script writers could have done a better job on Drago's part as the original Draco exhibited more wisdom as that of a dragon who had experienced and seen much over hundreds of years. Despite this, there were parts where Drago's words elicited the emotions and messages of old from the first Dragonheart.
Overall, I enjoyed this sequel, especially the second half, where I sensed the script writers warmed up, so to say, and brought more and more of the magic of the first Dragonheart into play. The orchestral arrangement of the Dragonheart theme was wonderful in the final credits with the short scene at the end a nice touch. I liked, too, the detail put into Drago, though, at times (particularly at the beginning), he was a bit too evil-looking.
Unlike, perhaps, some other viewers, the "death" of Draco in the first Dragonheart did not leave me sad. He only transmuted into a more elevated living presence among the stars. This sequel's ending left me wondering if the producers were entertaining a sequel. I'm hoping there is - mainly to preserve and pass on to younger generations the spirit and lessons of the heart (no pun intended) of Dragonheart.
The problem with sequels is they are always compared with the original and also, too often with sequels, the writers try a completely different angle which only loses the magic of the first one. However, I can breathe a sigh of relief that the main story theme was kept here (as well as the characters in somewhat different guises).
How can one preserve the Dragonheart theme if another sequel is to be made? The one thing to keep in mind is not to change Draco (or Drago) and neither the (eventual) hero. Settings and even the time-line can change but keep the theme of the triumph of honor, valor and virtue true and fast.
How about a Dragonheart in the 21st century? This would really test the script writer as, I believe a lot of people will agree, the Old Code is pretty much lost in these times.
So, can, and should, the Old Code live on in this digital age?
Hercules (2014)
An adventure - thoroughly enjoyable ...
I stayed away from watching this version of Hercules because a friend who had watched it while visiting her son in the US said it was terrible.
However, as I read other reviews, doubt began to creep in and thought maybe it's worth giving a try. I'm glad I did. I thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish.
I am a teacher of history and I had always been fascinated with legends and mythology in different cultures. I'm glad, though, I read some of the reviews here revealing that this was the story of a man and not Hercules the demigod replete with fire-breathing serpents, lightning and magic. I can understand, however, how readers who venture here are misled to thinking this was just another Greek mythology tale with all the special effects. There were none of the special effects associated with fantasy but effects were definitely there.
Yes, the thunder was there in this movie but it was in the battle scenes, the emotions and the wide vistas of the landscape and the thousands of soldiers filling them crashing into each other in thunderous roar.
The acting was good but we need to put down and behind us the other somewhat mindless roles that the Rock (Dwayne Johnson) had been typecast into, otherwise our judgment may be tainted and all the actors in the movie will suffer from this bias.
See Hercules as a man - and as a man he fights - with the internal demons that haunt him as well as the physical forces of weapons, men and the manifestation of his nightmares.
What I also liked was the touch of prophesy brought by their soothsayer-warrior accompanying them in their exploits - with each prophesy coming true in surprising manifestation. So, we are not completely bereft of the influence of the gods and destiny in this tale, yet there is none of the booming voices and flashes of lightning announcing their presence.
Yes, we need to leave the mythology and legend behind to enjoy watching this. We are, however, given an alternative theory of how Hercules - his heroism and feats - spawned our beloved tales of Hercules the demigod.
Sit back, enjoy the story, the action and the scenery.
The Flintstones (1994)
Kinda surprised ...
that this movie got such a low rating, but I realize expectations are different and the movie plot clicked for some while others were turned off.
I remember liking this movie a lot (and I still do). I liked the cartoon series too but somehow I felt the movie was better.
I could see that they tried to re-create as much of the original cartoon in the movie. When I saw John Goodman appear, I said to myself: "Omigosh, that is Fred!" Also, the rest just seem to fit into their parts.
What I also liked was seeing the cartoon take "solid" form. Sure, the movements were clunkier but I was expecting this. I liked the car with the passengers using their feet. Though it didn't have the zip of the cartoon car, the semblance and feel were there. I got a kick out of the different creature machines though again different from the cartoon but "fleshed" out in the movie.
Lots of novels turned into movies disappoint some fans and make the rest happy. I'm one of those who liked this movie version of the Flintstones, not that I haven't been disappointed before. For example, I remember reading "Jaws" and it really gave me the chills but the movie with the big, heavy, floppy and clumsy white shark was nowhere near the novel ... but I enjoyed the movie anyway.
So, don't judge the Flintstones by the rating. Give it a try, especially if you're nostalgic about the original cartoon series.
I give it a ten.