Zombie films are an interesting topic to me. There was a time when they were among the most popular of the horror genre, thanks to the late and great George A. Romero who launched the idea of zombies into fame with Night of the Living Dead. Since then, zombies have spread into TV shows such as The Walking Dead, one of the most popular shows ever, video games such as Death Road to Canada (I know that there's more notable examples of zombie games but that game really rules (no this is not a sponsored)), and more. Zombies in the film industry, though, have seemingly become less and less relevant over time, especially throughout this decade with a few exceptions here and there.
Then comes in The Dead Don't Die, a dark comedy from the mind of beloved indie filmmaker Jim Jarmusch and with the inclusion of an all-star cast. It's unlikely that this film would've fully revived zombie films, but it certainly could've offered a clever and fascinating take on the topic. Unfortunately.... it doesn't do that either.
The Dead Don't Die is an underwhelming satire that admittingly shares an important message, but it not only fails to create something interesting out of it, it can't manage to be entertaining either.
Easily the biggest issue is Jarmusch's writing. I have no doubt that his past work is great (this is the first film of his I've seen), but this film has easily the most stale dialogue I've seen all year so far. It feels as repetitive and boresome as ever. Lazy would be the best way to describe it as many lines are actually repeated, possibly as an attempt at symbolism, but most of the time it just comes off as awkward. The comedy in particular is where it struggles, offering a couple of decent laughs but often than not it fails to be clever.
I feel bad for the cast attached to this. The performances are actually the best thing about the film, with Bill Murray and Tilda Swinton being the standouts. Yet for some reason, the majority of the actors had to read their lines in the most monotonous voice possible, making the dialogue even more problematic than it already is. Other than that, most of the cast was at least decent and clearly doing what they can with what they're given.
Despite the actors giving their best effort, the characters they're playing are pretty forgettable. They either have not nearly enough screen time to leave a lasting impact, thus being wasted (poor Steve Buscemi), or fail to be interesting at all, especially the children at the juvenile center in the town where the film takes place, who add literally nothing to the film. The characters fully rely on the actors playing them to make the viewer care about them.
The film on a technical level isn't nearly as bad but is still problematic. The editing is questionable throughout, with some effects added in feeling like something that could've been done with iMovie and the cinematography is far from terrible, albeit bland. The makeup work, however, is rather impressive and make the zombies feel pretty realistic, it gets a point for that at least, as opposed to at least sixty subtracted ones so far. The music is decent as well, but if I have to hear Sturgill Simpson's "The Dead Don't Die" ONE MORE TIME.....well, let's just say that I'm as tired of it as Bill Murray was in this.
So right now, it's apparent that a lot of this films problems are due to Jim Jarmusch. As I said earlier, I'm sure his other films are of quality, and if that is the case then he just didn't care for once and put as much effort into this as a high school student would put into an assignment that was finished just minutes before it was due.
This is easily best seen with the last ten to fifteen minutes of the film, which I won't spoil here. However, I will say that it feels like he had no idea how to end it, so he just decided to use whatever he thought of and slap it in there, making for a unpleasant combination of it's failed comedy and poor character development.
The Dead Don't Die does show potential, and I do feel like it could've been something special considering how well liked the earlier films from Jarmusch are and the cast that he had to work with here. But instead of giving it his all, he just decided to force this out as a time waster. And a time waster it is, as it's a waste of time for Jarmusch, the cast he had, and the people who watched it. When you waste Tom Waits and Steve Buscemi's time, that's when you know you made a bad movie.
Final Grade: D
Saturday, September 21, 2019
Friday, September 13, 2019
Oscars 2020 - September Predictions
We're in the start of September, and that means that the awards season has officially begun, with Telluride and Venice Film Festivals having wrapped up and Toronto International Film Festival (aka TIFF) drawing to a close, a lot has been learned over the past couple weeks. What films have lived up to expectations and haven't pulled a Billy Lynn? What will surprise us all and plunge into awards glory? Let's find out!
Best Picture
- The Irishman
- Marriage Story
- Knives Out
- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
- A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
- Ford v Ferrari
- Waves
- Just Mercy
Yeah, I definitely spoke too soon on Marriage Story the last time I made Oscar predictions. Especially after the reception Noah Baumbach's latest got from Telluride and Venice, it's safe to say that a Best Picture nomination is in its future.
I originally put A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood as a lone Adapted Screenplay nominee in my past two predictions posts, but after it's TIFF reception it's pretty safe to say that the film has awards success on it's way.
Waves A24 got a lot of love out of Telluride, with critics going nuts for it right now. With a TIFF appearance as well, it's sure to be another big hit for the indie distributor.
Just Mercy is getting good reception from TIFF, although not as good as say Green Book which dealt with similar themes. So it may not be a big Best Picture player as other initially thought, but because of said themes I do think it could at least get nominated.
Best Director
I originally put A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood as a lone Adapted Screenplay nominee in my past two predictions posts, but after it's TIFF reception it's pretty safe to say that the film has awards success on it's way.
Waves A24 got a lot of love out of Telluride, with critics going nuts for it right now. With a TIFF appearance as well, it's sure to be another big hit for the indie distributor.
Just Mercy is getting good reception from TIFF, although not as good as say Green Book which dealt with similar themes. So it may not be a big Best Picture player as other initially thought, but because of said themes I do think it could at least get nominated.
Best Director
- Martin Scorsese for The Irishman
- James Mangold for Ford v Ferrari
- Rian Johnson for Knives Out
- Marielle Heller for A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
- Trey Edward Shults for Waves
Right after I say that Marriage Story is a Best Picture contender I then say that Baumbach won't get a Directing nomination for it. I think he's going to miss out similarly to how Martin McDonagh and Bradley Cooper did along with Tarantino, getting nominated for everything else only to miss out at the Oscars in favor of a surprise nominee.
Waves director Shults would be a good contender for the "surprise nominee" since although I don't it'll be as big as an awards hit as others do outside of Original Score, it's still very likely that enough Academy voters will like it enough to get it a nomination for this category.
Best Lead Actor
Waves director Shults would be a good contender for the "surprise nominee" since although I don't it'll be as big as an awards hit as others do outside of Original Score, it's still very likely that enough Academy voters will like it enough to get it a nomination for this category.
Best Lead Actor
- Robert De Niro in The Irishman
- Leonardo DiCaprio in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
- Adam Driver in Marriage Story
- Antonio Banderas in Pain and Glory
- Michael B. Jordan in Just Mercy
Let me tell you buddy, this category is a bloodbath this year.
Joaquin Phoenix is getting praise for his performance in Joker, but I feel like he's destined to be the one that just barely misses this year (with Jordan being the one who takes his spot).
Willem Dafoe in The Lighthouse could stand a significant chance here, but right now it sounds like A24 is planning on campaigning him in the Supporting Actor category, which is also packed. But who knows, maybe they'll change their minds and put him in Lead Actor after all, but right now that seems doubtful.
Despite praise for Driver and DiCaprio in their films, I do see them getting nominated but I just don't see them winning for their work, especially for DiCaprio who already has an Oscar.
For now, I'll just stick with De Niro who has the titular role in The Irishman. Not only does it seem like a substantial career comeback for him, but he's working with freakin' Scorsese again. How can you turn that down?
For now, though, it would probably be best to play the waiting game for this category and to just slowly watch more information and praise to come in.
Joaquin Phoenix is getting praise for his performance in Joker, but I feel like he's destined to be the one that just barely misses this year (with Jordan being the one who takes his spot).
Willem Dafoe in The Lighthouse could stand a significant chance here, but right now it sounds like A24 is planning on campaigning him in the Supporting Actor category, which is also packed. But who knows, maybe they'll change their minds and put him in Lead Actor after all, but right now that seems doubtful.
Despite praise for Driver and DiCaprio in their films, I do see them getting nominated but I just don't see them winning for their work, especially for DiCaprio who already has an Oscar.
For now, I'll just stick with De Niro who has the titular role in The Irishman. Not only does it seem like a substantial career comeback for him, but he's working with freakin' Scorsese again. How can you turn that down?
For now, though, it would probably be best to play the waiting game for this category and to just slowly watch more information and praise to come in.
Best Lead Actress
- Scarlett Johansson in Marriage Story
- Cynthia Erivo in Harriet
- Saoirse Ronan in Little Women
- Charlize Theron in Bombshell
- Jodie Turner-Smith in Queen & Slim
I originally said that Harriet reminded me of Darkest Hour, well now it's giving me more Jackie vibes instead. Right now the film just doesn't look like it's got enough steam to sweep the awards, and will probably just get nominations in Lead Actress and one or two other technical categories.
Johansson on the other hand is getting career best praise for Marriage Story, which Netflix seems ready to give a big push for Awards, so to the top she goes.
I was skeptical about putting Ronan here since I'm feeling Little Women won't be campaigned well enough, but the Academy (and everyone else for that matter) seems to like her enough at this point to let her in.
Best Supporting Actor
- Tom Hanks in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
- Joe Pesci in The Irishman
- Chris Evans in Knives Out
- Brad Pitt in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
- Jamie Foxx in Just Mercy
The Academy may have been pretty dismissive as of late towards Hanks. However, with him being the household name actor in America that's been getting some of the best reviews of his career for his newest work, and for a role that's very likely to be campaigned supporting no less, to say his third Oscar is on his way is very realistic as of now, especially considering that he's playing Mr. Rogers.
Best Supporting Actress
- Laura Dern in Marriage Story
- Annette Bening in The Report
- Jamie Lee Curtis in Knives Out
- Margot Robbie in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
- Meryl Streep in The Laundromat
Dern's time may at last be here. The beloved actress is in an already acclaimed film with a supporting role that has been praised as one of her best performances. Perhaps she can finally win!
Best Original Screenplay
- Knives Out
- Marriage Story
- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
- Waves
- Parasite
The premiere Knives Out at TIFF was among the best at the festival this year, and it's reviews so far have been through the roof. I've been saying this since I started making my Oscar predictions and I'll say it again, this movie is going to be a very big deal. Oh, and Parasite is being acclaimed like crazy too and is a surefire for Best International Film so here ya go.
Best Adapted Screenplay
- The Irishman
- A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
- Just Mercy
- The Farewell
- The Two Popes
Poor Jojo Rabbit got extremely divisive reception reception out of TIFF, meaning that it's Oscar chances aren't to hot anymore. Divisive films has made it into multiple categories in the past, most notably being Vice from last year, but when you compare the themes in Jojo Rabbit to the ones in Vice, it's certainly a detriment to Waititi's latest. Maybe it can sneak in here since Adapted Screenplay is kind of weak this year, but I wouldn't count on it.
For The Farewell and The Two Popes, I owe credit to Will Mavity from Twitter who pointed out that both films were adapted and not original as most people have been predicting. The Two Popes he said was based off a play the film's writer Anthony McCarten wrote, and The Farewell is based on a story its writer and director Lulu Wang wrote for "The American Life". The Academy is also known for putting films in Adapted regardless of whether its been considered Original or not given the circumstances (Ex. Moonlight) so chances are the same will apply to both films.
Best Film Editing
- Ford v Ferrari
- The Irishman
- Marriage Story
- Knives Out
- A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
Best Cinematography
- The Irishman
- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
- 1917
- Ford v Ferrari
- A Hidden Life
Best Original Score
- Waves
- Ford v Ferrai
- Little Women
- 1917
- Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
As previously mentioned, Waves is likely to sweep this category throughout the awards season, as the music in it is by far the most praised aspect of it so far. So what ever happens to it, it's safe to say that it'll at least end up with good luck here.
Best Original Song
- Toy Story 4
- Frozen 2
- The Lion King
- Harriet
- Cats
Best Production Design
- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
- Little Women
- The Irishman
- Downton Abbey
- Ford v Ferrari
Best Costume Design
- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
- Little Women
- Downton Abbey
- The Irishman
- Dolemite is My Name
Best Makeup and Hairstyling
- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
- Joker
- Bombshell
- Downton Abbey
- Aladdin
Going for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood winning the three categories above, as I already brought up last time in regards to Costume and Production Design that the film's 1960s recreation will be something the Academy won't simply say no to. Adding in Makeup and Hairstyling to the mix now because although it isn't as showy as the past couple of winners in this category, but it's still being considered rather impressive, and for a category like this and a film like this, a win seems like it could truly happen.
Best Visual Effects
- Avengers: Endgame
- Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
- The Lion King
- Captain Marvel
- Spider-Man: Far From Home
Best Sound Mixing
- Ford v Ferrari
- Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
- Ad Astra
- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
- Judy
Best Sound Editing
- Ford v Ferrari
- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
- 1917
- Ad Astra
- Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
Best Animated Film
- Toy Story 4
- Frozen 2
- Missing Link
- How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World
- Okko's Inn (the anime movie I foreshadowed oh so long ago)
Saturday, August 31, 2019
Disney+ Scares Me
In my review of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I expressed concern over how Disney owns pretty much everything, and when I say everything, I do mean everything. Even before they purchased Fox which gave them ownership of The Simpsons and X-Men, they still had ownership over major film production companies such as Marvel and Lucasfilm, giving them The Avengers, Star Wars, and more. And it certainly helps that their own films are already as appealing as they are, just look at the box office numbers for the remakes of Aladdin and The Lion King.
They’ve become perhaps the single most dominant company in the entertainment industry, and the fact that they hadn't created a streaming service before is honestly surprising, which now leads us to Disney+.
For the two people out there who haven't heard of Disney+ yet, it is Disney's answer to Netflix (and get ready to see them get brought up a lot here), and they are filling it to the absolute brim. Every Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, and Disney film ever made is being made available at launch, which is convenience at its finest. But wait, there's more! Similarly to Netflix, Disney+ will have plenty of exclusive shows and movies, many of which are based upon the previously mentioned properties, including the continuation of Star Wars: The Clone Wars! Wow! This sounds like Disney has created the ultimate streaming service! .....and that's what concerns me.
Not that I doubt the quality of the service itself, I'm sure it'll be just fine. But what scares me is its potential, the appeal it carries, and how destructive it may be to the film industry.
For starters, it's no surprise that when a film hits a streaming service, that's the one place where you can watch it. There are instances where those films do make it to theaters, but their distribution is so poor that most people would end up having to wait for the streaming release. Netflix has expressed interest in getting better theatrical releases for their films, but even with the latest Martin Scorsese film on the way they could only get it and all their other upcoming films a limited release for about three weeks before being made available via streaming.
Now that Disney is getting a streaming service, chances are we'll see the same issue arise here, and possibly in a much more harmful way. It's already been announced that the upcoming remake of Lady and the Tramp is coming exclusively to Disney+, and considering how massively successful Disney's live-action remakes have already been, it wouldn't be surprising if people subscribed to it just to watch the movie. If that were the case, Disney would see that they could easily get enough money through putting their new releases on the service more often, and then it could become a habit.
They could easily put the sequels to Black Panther and The Simpsons Movie on Disney+ without a theatrical release and still make a big profit. What about Rian Johnson's upcoming Star Wars trilogy who's to say that won't just be thrown on it, along with all other upcoming Star Wars movies? Then imagine what how other major film companies would see this. Naturally, they would likely see that they could make just as much money through the same means and create their own streaming services, like if Warner Bros. made Warner Bros.+ where you could watch every DC Comics movie ever made, and where all future DC Comics movies could be seen.
So, with all these movies on streaming services, what will be in theaters? Sure plenty of independent films could still be seen, but with films based on major IPs being made only available on those services, there's no way that theaters would be able to survive. Even if a big release would come out in theaters, the general public wouldn't find that form of releasing a film appealing anymore because of how common straight-to-streaming releases are, and the film would possibly flop, making the streaming service route evermore likely for companies.
Even if Disney ends up being the only film distributor to make a service like this, the fact that their films would be more commonly obtainable through Disney+ would still take a big toll on theater chains, regardless of what other films they would get, especially since Avengers: Endgame, a Disney owned property, just became the highest grossing movie ever. And with less successful theaters comes tons of closures, which means that not only would the theatrical experience suffer tremendously, but thousands would also end up being out of work.
The other issue that could result from this platform is that with such a major focus on beloved properties, independent filmmaking is likely to take a big hit. Look at Netflix, for example, say what you will about a good number of films that they've put out, but there is no denying that they've done a great job of bringing tons of smaller movies with new ideas through fruition. With a new major competitor though, this may come to a change.
Disney+ is obviously being made as a means to challenge Netflix, and with its wide number of beloved film series being made readily available there, Netflix will need to keep up. In order to do this, they'll need to focus more on getting bigger names to battle it out with Disney better. Thus, independent films won't be their priority anymore.
Netflix may not only one who supports indie cinema, the shift to an even wider focus on making big releases than there already is would mean that independent films would be made less and less, and even the studios dedicated to making those films would shut down because of a lack of interest. Not convinced? Well, remember how many people placed indie movies Lady Bird and Moonlight as among their favorite films of all time upon their release?
Perhaps the most harmful effect this service Disney+ may have would on the film industry though would be how it could effect some of the most important filmmakers of all time that are still working today.
Think back to the two previous points I made here. Netflix will likely start focusing more on household name brands in order to fight off Disney, meaning newer ideas will likely be rejected by them. Remember how Netflix got us The Ballad of Buster Scruggs from the Coen Brothers and Roma from Alfonso CuarĂ³n? What if they have new ideas that they can't get anyone else to back? What will happen to their ideas then? It might get picked up by another company, but considering that Martin Scorsese's upcoming film The Irishman is only happening because of Netflix since Paramount turner it down, chances are some of the best ideas from your favorite directors will never see the light of day.
Even when they could get a streaming giant to pick up their work, it would likely suffer because far, far more often than not they were intended to be seen in theaters, and streaming services will most likely just put the film on streaming day one to be seen on mobile devices and TV screens. Think people won't care? There are tons of people online you can find who have watched movies on their phones and complained about the film because it wasn't great to watch on said phones. People will likely think less of their work, and directors will be more unsatisfied with their work because of how much streaming giants prefer skipping theatrical windows.
Indeed, the fall of the theatrical experience would certainly spell bad news for those directors. So many of them have expressed the desire of having their films shown in theaters, so what will happen when theaters are essentially gone? It wouldn't surprise me if some of them just quit making movies altogether because of it, I would definitely expect Quentin Tarantino to skip out on his tenth and final film if this were the case.
So there you have it, with Disney+ have as massive of a chance as it does of blowing up, you have the likelihood of a threat to theatrical screenings, indie filmmaking, and the craft of some of the most brilliant people in the film industry. That's not even all that worries me, as I could list even more consequences that could result from it. But hey, I get to watch every Star Wars movie and every episode of The Simpsons on one service now!
Maybe I'm wrong, though. Maybe the theatrical experience will carry on as it is now, and independent movies and projects from highly acclaimed filmmakers will still be able to find companies to back them just fine, even with Disney+ in the picture. But for now, I think it's best to stay by my skepticism. Because with Disney, you always know that a desire for some cash is gonna be involved.
They’ve become perhaps the single most dominant company in the entertainment industry, and the fact that they hadn't created a streaming service before is honestly surprising, which now leads us to Disney+.
For the two people out there who haven't heard of Disney+ yet, it is Disney's answer to Netflix (and get ready to see them get brought up a lot here), and they are filling it to the absolute brim. Every Star Wars, Marvel, Pixar, and Disney film ever made is being made available at launch, which is convenience at its finest. But wait, there's more! Similarly to Netflix, Disney+ will have plenty of exclusive shows and movies, many of which are based upon the previously mentioned properties, including the continuation of Star Wars: The Clone Wars! Wow! This sounds like Disney has created the ultimate streaming service! .....and that's what concerns me.
Not that I doubt the quality of the service itself, I'm sure it'll be just fine. But what scares me is its potential, the appeal it carries, and how destructive it may be to the film industry.
For starters, it's no surprise that when a film hits a streaming service, that's the one place where you can watch it. There are instances where those films do make it to theaters, but their distribution is so poor that most people would end up having to wait for the streaming release. Netflix has expressed interest in getting better theatrical releases for their films, but even with the latest Martin Scorsese film on the way they could only get it and all their other upcoming films a limited release for about three weeks before being made available via streaming.
Now that Disney is getting a streaming service, chances are we'll see the same issue arise here, and possibly in a much more harmful way. It's already been announced that the upcoming remake of Lady and the Tramp is coming exclusively to Disney+, and considering how massively successful Disney's live-action remakes have already been, it wouldn't be surprising if people subscribed to it just to watch the movie. If that were the case, Disney would see that they could easily get enough money through putting their new releases on the service more often, and then it could become a habit.
They could easily put the sequels to Black Panther and The Simpsons Movie on Disney+ without a theatrical release and still make a big profit. What about Rian Johnson's upcoming Star Wars trilogy who's to say that won't just be thrown on it, along with all other upcoming Star Wars movies? Then imagine what how other major film companies would see this. Naturally, they would likely see that they could make just as much money through the same means and create their own streaming services, like if Warner Bros. made Warner Bros.+ where you could watch every DC Comics movie ever made, and where all future DC Comics movies could be seen.
So, with all these movies on streaming services, what will be in theaters? Sure plenty of independent films could still be seen, but with films based on major IPs being made only available on those services, there's no way that theaters would be able to survive. Even if a big release would come out in theaters, the general public wouldn't find that form of releasing a film appealing anymore because of how common straight-to-streaming releases are, and the film would possibly flop, making the streaming service route evermore likely for companies.
Even if Disney ends up being the only film distributor to make a service like this, the fact that their films would be more commonly obtainable through Disney+ would still take a big toll on theater chains, regardless of what other films they would get, especially since Avengers: Endgame, a Disney owned property, just became the highest grossing movie ever. And with less successful theaters comes tons of closures, which means that not only would the theatrical experience suffer tremendously, but thousands would also end up being out of work.
The other issue that could result from this platform is that with such a major focus on beloved properties, independent filmmaking is likely to take a big hit. Look at Netflix, for example, say what you will about a good number of films that they've put out, but there is no denying that they've done a great job of bringing tons of smaller movies with new ideas through fruition. With a new major competitor though, this may come to a change.
Disney+ is obviously being made as a means to challenge Netflix, and with its wide number of beloved film series being made readily available there, Netflix will need to keep up. In order to do this, they'll need to focus more on getting bigger names to battle it out with Disney better. Thus, independent films won't be their priority anymore.
Netflix may not only one who supports indie cinema, the shift to an even wider focus on making big releases than there already is would mean that independent films would be made less and less, and even the studios dedicated to making those films would shut down because of a lack of interest. Not convinced? Well, remember how many people placed indie movies Lady Bird and Moonlight as among their favorite films of all time upon their release?
Perhaps the most harmful effect this service Disney+ may have would on the film industry though would be how it could effect some of the most important filmmakers of all time that are still working today.
Think back to the two previous points I made here. Netflix will likely start focusing more on household name brands in order to fight off Disney, meaning newer ideas will likely be rejected by them. Remember how Netflix got us The Ballad of Buster Scruggs from the Coen Brothers and Roma from Alfonso CuarĂ³n? What if they have new ideas that they can't get anyone else to back? What will happen to their ideas then? It might get picked up by another company, but considering that Martin Scorsese's upcoming film The Irishman is only happening because of Netflix since Paramount turner it down, chances are some of the best ideas from your favorite directors will never see the light of day.
Even when they could get a streaming giant to pick up their work, it would likely suffer because far, far more often than not they were intended to be seen in theaters, and streaming services will most likely just put the film on streaming day one to be seen on mobile devices and TV screens. Think people won't care? There are tons of people online you can find who have watched movies on their phones and complained about the film because it wasn't great to watch on said phones. People will likely think less of their work, and directors will be more unsatisfied with their work because of how much streaming giants prefer skipping theatrical windows.
Indeed, the fall of the theatrical experience would certainly spell bad news for those directors. So many of them have expressed the desire of having their films shown in theaters, so what will happen when theaters are essentially gone? It wouldn't surprise me if some of them just quit making movies altogether because of it, I would definitely expect Quentin Tarantino to skip out on his tenth and final film if this were the case.
So there you have it, with Disney+ have as massive of a chance as it does of blowing up, you have the likelihood of a threat to theatrical screenings, indie filmmaking, and the craft of some of the most brilliant people in the film industry. That's not even all that worries me, as I could list even more consequences that could result from it. But hey, I get to watch every Star Wars movie and every episode of The Simpsons on one service now!
Maybe I'm wrong, though. Maybe the theatrical experience will carry on as it is now, and independent movies and projects from highly acclaimed filmmakers will still be able to find companies to back them just fine, even with Disney+ in the picture. But for now, I think it's best to stay by my skepticism. Because with Disney, you always know that a desire for some cash is gonna be involved.
Wednesday, July 31, 2019
Film Review - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)
In a time where everything ever to exist is owned by Disney, especially in the film industry, it's good to see an original film out there doing well at the box office, and one about the times before Mickey Mouse's monopoly no less. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (and I refuse to write it with an ellipsis) is one of the few non-major IP films out there that would get the attention of most audiences, thanks to how universally praised Quentin Tarantino's past films (Pulp Fiction in particular) have been received. And with such a wider audience Tarantino has, he's been able to craft his most expensive film to date, and with his budget, he's created his most ambitious work yet.
This late 1960s callback is not only the most technically impressive piece of Tarantino's career, but it is also a remarkable look at a fictional actor's life and the world around him.
That actor, in particular, is Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), a famed TV star fearing his fall trying to regain his confidence. DiCaprio could not be more perfect as Dalton, as he brings to life his struggles with confidence in such a comedic and enduring way that no other actor could've done as well as him.
In fact, all of the characters and performances are pretty much spot on. Every one feels perfectly casted, and regardless of how long they are in the film. Even characters with shorter screen times, like Marvin Schwarzs (a fictional agent portrayed by Al Pacino) and Bruce Lee (Mike Moh) are able to leave an impression because they don't waste a moment on screen, and fully embrace their character.
Brad Pitt, who plays Cliff Booth, is also worth noting, as he gives easily his best performance. His role as Rick Dalton's stunt double is one he was born for. He brings so much attitude to Booth, bringing to life the tough sidekick as anyone would've wanted.
The final widely-advertised performance in the film I haven't talked about yet would be Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate, who is certainly good, but Tate's character feels a bit wasted. Her style seems to be portrayed perfectly, but throughout the film very little is told about her outside of her stardom, and it feels like she is there purely to compare her to Rick Dalton. But even then this doesn't take away from how great the characters are in this film overall.
It is also undeniable that this is easily the best recreation of 1960s Hollywood to date. The sets and costumes are all spot-on and brimming with old-school L.A. charm. The actual movie sets in the movie (set-ception as one might say) showcase this best, as they separate themselves from the rest of the film entirely and make you feel like you're now watching a classic western.
And the scenes where those western sets can be seen are among the best in the film. They explore Rick Dalton in unexpected ways and give DiCaprio some of the best moments of his career, and are shot beautifully as a homage to those old westerns.
Yes, the movie is unsurprisingly host to some amazing cinematography. From perfect centering that effortlessly captures someone's moment to gorgeous scenery shots, Robert Richardson has once again proven that he is one of the best photography directors working today.
The editing is solid, giving each scene enough time to breath and staying true to the style of the film wonderfully. However, it does feel like some scenes have been given too much time to breath and run a little too long, and they could've used some more cutting there to make film feel a little quicker, per-say.
As for Quentin Tarantino's work here, his writing is what would you would expect from him. You get sharp, realistic dialogue with the perfect mix of comedy, attitude, and make the film all the more engaging.
His direction is just as credible. He has a clear focus on his actors and where to take each scene, helping make the film the character-driven piece that it is and making it work all the more.
With an excellent cast, top-notch production value, and excellent writing, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the kind of high-budget film we need nowadays. One that's original, has heart, and offers plenty of reason to come back to it in the future. It's not the best work Tarantino has put out there, but it certainly is another great offering from him.
Final Grade: A
This late 1960s callback is not only the most technically impressive piece of Tarantino's career, but it is also a remarkable look at a fictional actor's life and the world around him.
That actor, in particular, is Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), a famed TV star fearing his fall trying to regain his confidence. DiCaprio could not be more perfect as Dalton, as he brings to life his struggles with confidence in such a comedic and enduring way that no other actor could've done as well as him.
In fact, all of the characters and performances are pretty much spot on. Every one feels perfectly casted, and regardless of how long they are in the film. Even characters with shorter screen times, like Marvin Schwarzs (a fictional agent portrayed by Al Pacino) and Bruce Lee (Mike Moh) are able to leave an impression because they don't waste a moment on screen, and fully embrace their character.
Brad Pitt, who plays Cliff Booth, is also worth noting, as he gives easily his best performance. His role as Rick Dalton's stunt double is one he was born for. He brings so much attitude to Booth, bringing to life the tough sidekick as anyone would've wanted.
The final widely-advertised performance in the film I haven't talked about yet would be Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate, who is certainly good, but Tate's character feels a bit wasted. Her style seems to be portrayed perfectly, but throughout the film very little is told about her outside of her stardom, and it feels like she is there purely to compare her to Rick Dalton. But even then this doesn't take away from how great the characters are in this film overall.
It is also undeniable that this is easily the best recreation of 1960s Hollywood to date. The sets and costumes are all spot-on and brimming with old-school L.A. charm. The actual movie sets in the movie (set-ception as one might say) showcase this best, as they separate themselves from the rest of the film entirely and make you feel like you're now watching a classic western.
And the scenes where those western sets can be seen are among the best in the film. They explore Rick Dalton in unexpected ways and give DiCaprio some of the best moments of his career, and are shot beautifully as a homage to those old westerns.
Yes, the movie is unsurprisingly host to some amazing cinematography. From perfect centering that effortlessly captures someone's moment to gorgeous scenery shots, Robert Richardson has once again proven that he is one of the best photography directors working today.
The editing is solid, giving each scene enough time to breath and staying true to the style of the film wonderfully. However, it does feel like some scenes have been given too much time to breath and run a little too long, and they could've used some more cutting there to make film feel a little quicker, per-say.
As for Quentin Tarantino's work here, his writing is what would you would expect from him. You get sharp, realistic dialogue with the perfect mix of comedy, attitude, and make the film all the more engaging.
His direction is just as credible. He has a clear focus on his actors and where to take each scene, helping make the film the character-driven piece that it is and making it work all the more.
With an excellent cast, top-notch production value, and excellent writing, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the kind of high-budget film we need nowadays. One that's original, has heart, and offers plenty of reason to come back to it in the future. It's not the best work Tarantino has put out there, but it certainly is another great offering from him.
Final Grade: A
Sunday, July 28, 2019
Film Review - The Dark Crystal (1982)
It’s no secret that Jim Henson was the master of puppetry. He took it to new heights with his shows Sesame Street and The Muppet Show, both of which were and still are cultural phenomenons, giving the act of tying some string to some cloth and waving it around a whole new meaning. Indeed, Henson’s work stands out as the best in terms of puppetry out there. However, none of his other films or shows, including what was made following his passing, could top his craft seen in The Dark Crystal.
The 1982 film, directed by Henson and his friend Frank Oz, is perhaps the most impressive work of Jim Henson’s career. Every puppet, set, and prop was made just for the film's world known as Thra, and the effort put into it shows.
Everything in The Dark Crystal feels real. The puppets are all brimming with personality. Each one feels unique to their own character, as their design alone perfectly tells the viewer who they are. The sets are equally remarkable, being packed with so much detail that they always feel real, even with the age they show nowadays.
Sets and puppetry aren't the only places where this film shines on a technical though, as it also boasts some nice cinematography. There are many shots which perfectly capture the wonder of many of the world Henson has created. One shot that stood out from the rest was when the main character, Jen, enters the lair of Aughra (who I'll touch on a little later). The way it reveals the lair and captures Jen's amazement of what he is seeing is simply beautiful and is easily burned into the viewer's mind.
The score is also used wonderfully. It's the kind of score that really sneaks up on you, as in it there aren't a whole lot of instances where the score is the key feature of what makes a scene stand out, but when it gets it's moment to shine, like during the previously mentioned scene in Augrha's lair, oh boy, it's good.
At this point, it's clear that this is a technical achievement, with some of the most impressive visual effects of the 1980s. But.....that's kinda where it ends for the most part.
As visually beautiful as it is, The Dark Crystal can't escape its hollow storytelling.
The is especially apparent in its characters. Most of them feel rather forgettable because of how bland they are. The majority of them are generic and seem just like every other character.
This is most obvious with the main lead Jen, one of the last Gelfings left in this fantasy world. His personality is severely lacking. He has no wit nor charm, and the film is built around his adventure. It makes it all the more difficult for it to become engaging when your main character is one-note.
It's a shame too because when the movie does have good characters, it does manage to be more interesting. And those actually interesting moments can be seen with Aughra, who Jen meets early on because she has an investing personality, one that easily separates her from everyone else in the film. Characters like her are able to make something far more entertaining out this, and I wish there was more of that here.
The pacing is problematic as well, as mostly seen in scenes housed by the Skesis, a villainous group of vulture-like...uh...creatures. One moment that best showcases this is when they are dining and discussing Jen, but before they actually start discussing that, we see them just eating and being served for a little too long. It's scenes like this that showcase how the pacing can be unnecessarily slow or have too much of a focus on the visuals.
World-building in The Dark Crystal kind of goes both ways. On one side, it beautifully shows off the different creatures and regions of this world, but on the other doesn't go too in-depth with it. We are introduced to a good number of species, yet we never learn much about most of them, which makes it hard to find a reason to care for them.
The same can be said for the world of Thra in general, as we see so much of this fascinating world, but little is told about it and it's more upbeat past, which makes it difficult to find a reason to be more invested in the world.
It's easy to compare this movie to The Lord of the Rings. They both share a fantasy setting, involve someone going on a dangerous journey to take an object from one location to another and have many unique species in each that can be compared to one another. In Tolkien's work, however, it works so much better because it's characters all stand out with memorable personalities, it never feels like it dwells on for too long for as long as each novel/film is, and has impeccable world-building.
I feel that if The Dark Crystal had been split up over two or three films, similarly to how The Lord of the Rings was, it would've been able to develop it's characters and world much more, making for something far more engaging. Fortunately, this may be the case soon as it's getting a TV show, The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance, which is coming to Netflix very soon and looks promising, so maybe that can make this world more investing. But for now, we just have a film that is undoubtedly impressive on a technical level, that just feels like it could've been something so much more.
Final Grade: C
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

