The Official Review Thread of 2019

Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2019

Post by Mister Tee »

OscarGuy wrote:Not sure how you get those confused. Lily James was in Downton Abbey...
Never watched it.
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2019

Post by OscarGuy »

Not sure how you get those confused. Lily James was in Downton Abbey...
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2019

Post by Mister Tee »

Precious Doll wrote: Lily James (I get her confused with Felicity Jones & Lily Collins)
To underscore your point: the woman I went with asked me who this Lily James was, and I confidently said she'd been in the Warren Beatty Howard Hughes movie. (That, I discover upon research, was Lily Collins.)
User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 4453
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2019

Post by Precious Doll »

Mister Tee wrote: I also saw Yesterday, and it's nearly the opposite of Captain Marvel: enjoyable most of the way, but it doesn't really know how to end itself, and the last 20 minutes kind of dribble away. Granted, I'm probably the target audience for this -- nostalgic boomer who has the Beatles catalog committed to memory -- and (uncool opinion) I've usually found Richard Curtis' stuff easy enough to take. But I found the film mostly amusing (the running Google-search gag kept working, for me) and the actors appealing enough that it was a pleasant sit. Which is high acclaim in this vacuous season.
And thank goodness for the baby boomers because they are pretty much responsible for cinemas showing adult content, though for how much longer. Cinema as we knew it is dying a death by a thousand cuts.

I saw Yesterday on the Monday morning after the opening weekend, which also happens to be one my local cinemas ultra cheap day, and it was packed with an older audience. Same thing happened again the Monday just gone with the documentary Hail Satan.

When we had our annual French Film Festival earlier in the year (it runs about 5 to 6 weeks) and a program of about 70 films plays multiple times at multiple venues across the city and the weekday day daytime sessions are very well attended. However, the week night screenings are rather sparse and I'm finding that is the new norm for anything remotely adult and not aimed at the masses.

I found Yesterday very easy to sit through even if its basic concept wore thin rather quickly. Himesh Patel and Lily James (I get her confused with Felicity Jones & Lily Collins) were appealing leads and had great chemistry and did the best they could with their rather sketchy characters. Shame none of the supporting actors had anything to really do.

I'm not a Richard Curtis fan and he is rather predictable and whilst I didn't actually think this was a 'good' film it was a very easy viewing experience, not that far from Bohemian Rhapsody and Rocketman. The film though had one absolutely gem of a moment that was so unexpected because I thought the film was maybe heading down a different track in relation to these other characters that are discreetly observed as the film progresses.

Funnily enough I had lunch today with a couple of female friends (baby boomers) and they felt pretty much the same about Yesterday and Rocketman.
"I want cement covering every blade of grass in this nation! Don't we taxpayers have a voice anymore?" Peggy Gravel (Mink Stole) in John Waters' Desperate Living (1977)
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2019

Post by Sabin »

Always Be My Maybe is a movie that is largely being defined by what it is (a Netflix rom-com, two Asian-American leads who wrote and directed it, contemporary depiction of class-struggle), but it's more worth talking about what it isn't which is to say possessing meaningful stakes. There is NO reason why these two people shouldn't be together. I understand why the film isn't remotely interested in defining Sasha by her douchebag fiancé because Ali Wong is too intelligent an on-screen presence for that to be believable or interesting. But in losing this character halfway through the film, it essentially treads water until the end, with spiking entertainment value brought in by giving her a brief, meaningless tryst with [actual] Keanu Reeves. Beyond that, I knew something was wrong early on in the film when I knew nothing about either character's personality after five minutes. This is doubtlessly a personal film for both Randall Park and Ali Wong (who both co-wrote it) both in servicing as star vehicles for them but also in conveying some personal accounts of the Asian-American experience but very little of whatever they thought was special about this film is alive on-screen. It probably needed a director who would challenge the material or bring more intimacy and human moments than Nahnatchka Khan. It feels like television.

Still it's not an un-pleasurable experience. The dialogue is very funny.
"How's the despair?"
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2019

Post by Mister Tee »

A few minor mentions:

I've been a bit confused by the very existence of Captain Marvel. The original comic book was before my time (it was lawsuit-ed out of existence for being too similar to Superman), but even I knew it was about a kid named Billy Batson who said "Shazam!" and turned into the titular super-hero. I expected this film to be a female version of same, and was surprised to find nothing like that on the screen. A multi-level Google search turned up the facts in the following ink:

https://www.delmarvanow.com/story/opini ... 058609002/

The most ridiculous part of this? If you Google "Captain Marvel", you get strictly the Marvel female heroine. It took me several re-Googles to finally track down the Captain Marvel I was seeking -- the original -- which now only exists under "Shazam".

Let me say, I resent Marvel for many many reasons -- chiefly its fanboyization of the entire movie industry -- but their being allowed to capture history and rewrite it to favor their story seems a step too far.

Anyway, about the movie -- I'm totally with Sabin: I hated it from almost the opening moment, but once it set down in 1990-whatever, I found I enjoyed it in a low-key way. Not the worst of the Marvels. (And, odd coincidence: later the same night, I watched, for the first time, 1953's It Came from Outer Space -- and, to my amazement, I found another movie that featured shape-shifting aliens.)

I also saw Yesterday, and it's nearly the opposite of Captain Marvel: enjoyable most of the way, but it doesn't really know how to end itself, and the last 20 minutes kind of dribble away. Granted, I'm probably the target audience for this -- nostalgic boomer who has the Beatles catalog committed to memory -- and (uncool opinion) I've usually found Richard Curtis' stuff easy enough to take. But I found the film mostly amusing (the running Google-search gag kept working, for me) and the actors appealing enough that it was a pleasant sit. Which is high acclaim in this vacuous season.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2019

Post by Sabin »

dws1982 wrote
The villain in that film may not have been stronger, but he was better integrated into the film and was tied to the characters in what was--for me at least--a relatively surprising way. I also wasn't at all a fan of the mid-credits reveal: I'm sure they'll retcon their way out of it in the sequels, but unless they really come up with a good solution, it'll be hard to see as anything but an ass-pull.
To the first point, I called it the moment I saw the trailer. Slightly annoying because we've seen this plot a few time before in MCU films.

The mid-credits reveal is some true wackness that I am not excited to see further developed. However, my biggest complaint about this film (which I found slight but charming enough) is that this is just not my Spider-Man. The Spider-Man I know and love is in a state of constant struggle. He suffers from "The Parker Luck," which is explained in the comics as everybody around Peter thinking that he's an unlucky schmoe who just can't catch a break... but little do they know what his life is really like. This is largely hand-waved away in the MCU. Not only do an increasingly wide group of supportive characters know his true identity but he has Stark employees and millions of dollars worth of Stark Tech on speed-dial. In these films, he will never be short on rent or up a creek without a paddle. In the MCU, Peter Parker doesn't live his life under the shadow of Uncle Ben... it's Uncle Tony. And that's a little bit of a bummer. My Peter Parker is broke and late.

Nothing in the film made me as happy as a mid-credits reveal of a very special "new" character.
"How's the despair?"
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2019

Post by anonymous1980 »

SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME
Cast: Tom Holland, Jake Gyllenhaal, Samuel L. Jackson, Zendaya, Marisa Tomei, Cobie Smulders, Jon Favreau, Jacob Batalon, Martin Starr, JB Smoove, Tony Revolori.
Dir: Jon Watts.

Just shortly after the events of Endgame, Peter Parker tries to return to his old life as a normal teenager and take a vacation in Europe with his friends and classmates and confess his feelings to MJ. But superhero stuff keeps getting in the way. The second solo Spider-Man film is a whole lot of fun. I find this almost interchangeable with Homecoming (although I think Peter Parker's arc in the first film was better) and that's a good thing. This is pretty much a breezy teen comedy with some superhero action and mayhem tossed into it. Tom Holland is once again just wonderful as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. These films wouldn't be half as enjoyable without his considerable acting chops and charm. All that being said, if you're not a fan of superhero movies or the MCU, this isn't going to be the film that will change your mind.

Oscar Prospects: Visual Effects, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing....maybe Costume Design for Mysterio's outfit.

Grade: B+
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2019

Post by dws1982 »

Spider-Man: Far From Home
In some ways an inversion of the 2017 film: In that one, Spider-Man/Peter was a boy wanting all of the power (but not necessarily the responsibility) of an adult. Here he's not necessarily an adult, but as Spider-Man he has all of the power and responsibility of an adult, but all he wants is to go back to being an ordinary teeanager with no concerns or responsibilities beyond having fun on his European trip and making sure MJ knows how he feels about her. The main philosophical question at play is whether he has a choice, or not? Can he go back, or is it his destiny? (Christian Blogs and Magazines will find quite a bit to discuss in its treatment of the Predestination vs. Free Will theme.)

In general it's a lesser movie than Homecoming for a few reasons: The general vibe of Homecoming worked a lot better, maybe just because it was essentially an origin story; His friend was really tiresome, and ultimately--both in the writing of the character and in Jacob Batalon's performance--becomes emblematic of what I tend to dislike about a lot of superhero movies in general and Marvel ones specifically; The villain in that film may not have been stronger, but he was better integrated into the film and was tied to the characters in what was--for me at least--a relatively surprising way. I also wasn't at all a fan of the mid-credits reveal: I'm sure they'll retcon their way out of it in the sequels, but unless they really come up with a good solution, it'll be hard to see as anything but an ass-pull. Holland is still a good Spider-Man, I think--definitely the best live action Spider-Man, and I just hope that going forward he doesn't fall into the superhero trap of every other line of dialogue being "ironic" meta-commentary on superheroes. European locations were fun, although I did get a laugh at a scene on the Charles Bridge where there were only two people in the entire scene, as opposed to two hundred, like there were every time I walked across.
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2019

Post by anonymous1980 »

CHILD'S PLAY
Cast: Aubrey Plaza, Gabriel Bateman, Brian Tyree Henry, Tim Matheson, voice of Mark Hamill.
Dir: Lars Klevberg.

This is the reboot of the 1980's cult horror film. In this one, the plot is basically the same but the boy is older and instead of having a doll being possessed by the soul of a psychopathic killer, this time around the doll is a high-tech toy with A.I. software gone rogue. I've seen the first two (one voluntarily, two on TV) and parts of three of the original films. I honestly did enjoy the first one. I will say that this film managed to be as good as the first one. That is to say, it's no horror masterpiece but it's a fun, ghoulish B-movie with some decent scares and creative kills and I enjoyed this one too. If you enjoy that kind of stuff from time to time, this is a fun time.

Oscar Prospects: None.

Grade: B-
Franz Ferdinand
Adjunct
Posts: 1457
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2019

Post by Franz Ferdinand »

Sabin wrote:
Franz Ferdinand wrote
In a world where a $118 million opening can be considered a disappointment, so it is with Toy Story 3, as the year of dismal box office rolls on and infects Disney/Pixar. Any movie with a "4" in its title can be considered overreach, and as surely as I will eventually see it (it will more than likely be one of a handful of movies I see in the theatres, and it would be the first of 2019), and will likely enjoy it, is it really necessary? Pixar's magic days seem so far behind.
I wouldn't disagree. I realized today that there were FIVE Pixar films I decided to skip: Cars 2 & 3, Coco, Finding Dory, and The Good Dinosaur. So, I made the decision today to watch Finding Dory and found it terribly uninspired. I'll catch up with the rest for completist sake (Coco looks like it's a good film) but I've learned something: when Pixar is bland, which is to say when there is no innovation plugged into the "Pixar Story Formula" (which we now can see is forerunner to the Marvel Story Formula) there is a lifelines that surpasses all other animation studios.

While Pixar's magic era definitely seems behind it, Inside Out is as good a movie as any they've done. It's pretty clear their pattern is make a few sequels, make an original, make a few sequels, make an original. With two originals out next year (Onward and Soul), I'll reserve judgement for a few months.
Fair enough! My wife and I watched Inside Out in the theatres and left our 1.5 year old daughter (at the time) with grandma - we were both a horrible blubbering mess. The movie is still wonderful, but arguably the only effort from the past decade that can stand with their magic era (Coco is a pleasant movie, beautiful animation and a lesser-covered cultural perspective, but a fairly stock narrative). The Onward teaser trailer can't help but seem like more of the same, like any B-list animated movie we've seen before. I will reserve judgment on it for it, but my expectations are tampered.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2019

Post by Sabin »

Franz Ferdinand wrote
In a world where a $118 million opening can be considered a disappointment, so it is with Toy Story 3, as the year of dismal box office rolls on and infects Disney/Pixar. Any movie with a "4" in its title can be considered overreach, and as surely as I will eventually see it (it will more than likely be one of a handful of movies I see in the theatres, and it would be the first of 2019), and will likely enjoy it, is it really necessary? Pixar's magic days seem so far behind.
I wouldn't disagree. I realized today that there were FIVE Pixar films I decided to skip: Cars 2 & 3, Coco, Finding Dory, and The Good Dinosaur. So, I made the decision today to watch Finding Dory and found it terribly uninspired. I'll catch up with the rest for completist sake (Coco looks like it's a good film) but I've learned something: when Pixar is bland, which is to say when there is no innovation plugged into the "Pixar Story Formula" (which we now can see is forerunner to the Marvel Story Formula) there is a lifelines that surpasses all other animation studios.

While Pixar's magic era definitely seems behind it, Inside Out is as good a movie as any they've done. It's pretty clear their pattern is make a few sequels, make an original, make a few sequels, make an original. With two originals out next year (Onward and Soul), I'll reserve judgement for a few months.
"How's the despair?"
Franz Ferdinand
Adjunct
Posts: 1457
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2019

Post by Franz Ferdinand »

Sabin wrote:What a summer of flops this is turning into! One after another.

Men in Black International, Dark Phoenix, Shaft, Pokemon Detective Pikachu. The Secret Life of Pets 2 and Godzilla King of Monsters will break even after international. And of course, Booksmart failed to replicate Superbad's success. We're only a month and a half into summer and yet, like election season, it feels like we've never left. I'm a bit alarmed that we're heading towards a world where audiences only see ten films a year, all Disney tentpoles. But part of me looks at these titles listed above (minus Booksmart) and wonders: well, what fools did you take the audience for?

Yes, "sequels are dead" will be the spin for the five days leading up to Toy Story 4.
In a world where a $118 million opening can be considered a disappointment, so it is with Toy Story 3, as the year of dismal box office rolls on and infects Disney/Pixar. Any movie with a "4" in its title can be considered overreach, and as surely as I will eventually see it (it will more than likely be one of a handful of movies I see in the theatres, and it would be the first of 2019), and will likely enjoy it, is it really necessary? Pixar's magic days seem so far behind.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2019

Post by Sabin »

At the end of Toy Story 3, I thought that I had just seen a very well done goodbye to a franchise that I had already said goodbye to with Toy Story 2. Without giving too much away, only a fool would think they had seen the end of the franchise at the end of this movie. It's a soft reboot if there ever was one. The plot of the film is that Woody needs to save Bonnie's favorite toy, Forky, from an Antique Store where he is being held captive by Gabby Gabby, a creepy old toy, and his journey to do so leads him to reunite with Bo Peep and meet a bunch of toys who challenge his preconceived notions about his life. There are a lot of problems with this film. Gabby Gabby is an uninteresting character that I didn't care about (the film just relies on her creepiness). The plot is a meandering thing that essentially serves as a team-building operation to gather up a new group of toys we're going to follow in Toy Story 5. But worst of all, this is really a film about the turning point in Woody's life as a toy where he makes the decision to go from having a child to being free, and he's largely in the backseat for most of it. Bo Peep drives the film. This is a smart choice because she has a lot of potential as a character, and I enjoyed how she came across almost as a divorcée. But by the end of it, I had seen a lot of Toys, but no Story.

Worth seeing for Forky's existential crisis.
"How's the despair?"
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2019

Post by anonymous1980 »

ROCKETMAN
Cast: Taron Egerton, Jamie Bell, Bryce Dallas Howard, Richard Madden, Gemma Jones, Stephen Graham, Charlie Rowe.
Dir: Dexter Fletcher.

This is the film biopic of Elton John which traces his humble beginnings to his rise and his struggles with his sexuality, drug addiction, alcoholism, the works. As far as music biopics go, this film pretty much hits everything you'd expect it to hit. There's nothing new here. But what sets it apart from that other cliched music biopic of another queer rock musician is that it tells its story more creatively, with more verve and most importantly, honesty. This doesn't pussyfoot around their subject matter's sexuality or vices. Most of Elton John's well-known hits make an appearance of course but they're done in more than just a "MEMBA THIS?" way (it helps that Taron Egerton actually SINGS the songs rather than lip-syncs them, which gives them all the freedom to rearrange and reimagine the songs). The result is a biopic that feels more than just a way to boost iTunes downloads.

Oscar Prospects: If Rami Malek can win, Taron Egerton sure as hell should at least get nominated. This film could get in Best Picture, Costume Design, Makeup & Hairstyling, Original Song and maybe even Supporting Actor for Jamie Bell.

Grade: A-

TOY STORY 4
Cast: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts, Tony Hale, Christina Hendricks, Madeleine McGraw, Keegan-Michael Key, Jordan Peele, Keanu Reeves, Joan Cusack, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, Kristen Schaal, Ally Maki, Jay Hernandez, Lori Alan, Don Rickles, Estelle Harris, Blake Clark, Jeff Garlin, June Squibb (voices).
Dir: Josh Cooley.

The fourth (and last?) installment of the franchise that launched PIXAR. This is the further adventures of Woody, Buzz and all the toys, now in the possession of a little girl who made herself a toy out of a spork named Forky. Toy Story 3, I felt, was already a great conclusion. I personally didn't need and I certainly didn't ask for a third installment (I do like the idea of having one-off shorts featuring the characters every now and then but I wasn't expecting a full-blown sequel). But this managed to prove me wrong. It isn't the best of the series for sure. But it's still one of the best films of 2019 so far and the best animated film of 2019 so far. The new characters Duck & Bunny and Duke Kaboom are all hilarious, wonderful editions to the canon. I loved it.

Oscar Prospects: Should be a shoo-in for at least an Animated Feature nomination as well as an Original Song nomination.

Grade: A-
Post Reply

Return to “2019”