Not the best Star Wars movie, not the worst,
It’s funny how episodes VII, VIII, IX reflect IV, V, VI in my opinion.
The first in each run was the best of the three. The second was technically superior, just not quite as exciting. The third had a poor first half, redeemed by a much better closing hour!
Totally amazing film this, historically and quality wise. Restored from the original material and looked incredible
" Storyline
On its fiftieth anniversary, the events surrounding the actual Apollo 11 space mission are presented solely using archival footage and still photographs of or associated with the mission. The events span from the eleventh hour preparations for the launch to shortly after the safe touchdown of the capsule with its three astronauts back on Earth"
Apollo 11 in 4K is stunning. Just recently watched it and will probably treat ourselves to another viewing over the holidays.
I suppose my issue with the ‘Disney Era’ is that they have totally retrod the same ground told in the original trilogy, twice! And, in the process destroyed Luke, trying a last minute correction in this film that really fails to gain traction in my eyes.
Thank goodness that Jon Favereau is running the Mandalorian, and hopefully will replace the disaster that Kennedy has proved.
Have watched Mandalorian up to ep 7.
Looks pretty but ain’t all that I’m afraid.
Hi Jamie,
Yes, I can understand that reaction. I suppose for me it just is something that is not an obvious retread of the story that has been told before, and I feel it embodies more of the spirit of the original trilogy.
M
Jamanji - The Next Level
Juvenile, purile entertainment …I loved it. Hooted throughout.
In fairness a couple of the running jokes stayed beyond their welcome, but there was enough happening for that to be forgiven, at least by me.
M
1917
If you haven’t seen this GO NOW.
Yes, you can do minor picks, but that would be sooo curmudgeonly. The films premise is starkly simple, go from point A to point B; but no-mans lnd happens to be in the way.
One of the things I love about this film is the pacing. you are given time to gain equilibrium between moments of high octane madness.
A very moving picture that deserves to be seen on the big screen. Why are you still reading this??? Go, GO NOW!
Just back from 1917 and my (high) expectations were not quite met.
Technically impressive, amazing cinematography and some sections have a mythical atmosphere that I found quite compelling but overall I found myself uninvolved emotionally. I think that the Everyman style of the lead actor is fine but the rather cliched (Indiana Jones, Cold Mountain, Saving Private Ryan anyone?) plot elements are too much at times and the few star cameos playing stiff upper lip officers are somehow out of place. I felt neither horrified nor elated. Dunkirk moved me far more, as did They Shall Not Grow Old.
Glad I saw it and some of the scenes will stay with me but by some distance neither the most affecting nor the most gripping war movie I have seen.
Bruce
…on a different note entirely I loved David Copperfield. Much of the joy and richness of the book even if less of the pathos. Great fun, and a fabulous ensemble cast. Lovers of the book (it is one of my top 3) need to accept the liberties taken with plot and character and just enjoy it.
I am not sure what people totally unfamiliar with the book would make of it but a dull, gloomy BBC2 sunday afternoon adaptation it surely is not
Bruce
I found that watching it the second time had far more emotional impact. The first time I was swept along by both the technical aspects AND the tension.
No, sorry - I don’t.
If someone wants to reinterpret for the modern age I have no issues with that, just DON’T set it in Victorian Britain.
I think an excellent re-interpretation would be Kurosawa’s Kagemusha, placing King Lear in a Samurai milieu, for instance.
The problem with the new David Copperfield approach for me is that it completely pulls me out of any verisimilitude.
It was for this reason that I didn’t enjoy either last year’s A Christmas Carol nor Dracula; but I did enjoy the better episodes of Moffat’s Sherlock Holmes.
A modern telling of David Copperfield based around modern issues could be very powerful.
I am not clear if you have seen the movie? It does not alter the period setting or characterisations dramatically, just simplifies the plot and alters emphasis etc.
I would argue the richness of David Copperfield as a book makes it unfilmable in the sense that it is a an experience to read the language itself beyond any plot or story. This is not completely true of every book.
Why cannot a film be judged on its own merit as being inspired by rather than copying the text? Familiarity with the story and characters allowed me to enjoy it more, but will not replace my enjoyment of the text.
Copperfield is of course informed by issues of social justice but the characters that illuminate it are the real soul of the book for me and I am not sure it translates other than in the broadest sense to a truly creative retelling such as some of the great Shakesperean stories.
Interesting debate.
Hi Bruce,
Rather than clog this thread I’ll start a new one when I get half an hour.
M
We went to see Emma yesterday. It was quite a pretty and unchallenging movie but unfortunately failed the “Did I stay awake” test - I dozed off for 5 mins until my wife silenced a snore with a jab of her elbow and a stern look once she had my attention.
However, once awakened I did enjoy it. There was a lot of humour in it (probably there is in the book but it’s about 55 years since I last read any Jane Austen). Bill Nighy was a special delight. I did think that the short piece of “some natural nudity” announced on the certificate from the regulator at the beginning was somewhat gratuitous, but so what? I’m surprised they felt it necessary to mention.
Best
David
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
Tenet
For me this is the weakest of the Chris Nolan films.
The basic setup is that the protagonist needs to get control of a MacGuffin that will, if triggered, lead to the destruction of reality. Does the story work as narrative, emotionally or technically? For me the answer is …partially. It is not egregious in its transgressions, but it does rely on you not to think too much, which is always a bad sign.
The narrative suffers from a weak plot and antagonist motivation, the latter of which is directly acknowledged by the script! This was frustratingly EASY to fix.
Emotionally I found it hard to commit, in part because of the logic, or lack thereof, that the film was trying to push at me.
Technically I felt that Nolan was trying to do an Avengers on me, ‘This is too complex for people to understand so just go with the flow’. In part they were trying to have their cake and eat it, appealing to multi-verse explanations at one point. The issue with this, for me, is that if there are multiple versions of people it is the death or failure of MY protagonist that bothers me. The final ‘reveal’ for me opens up the possibility of a central temporal paradox with the plot.
I will refrain from my thoughts on inversion and other spoilers.
Overall I think that this may be worth watching on the big screen, as that is where its merits will be best appreciated, these being: great production values; direction; and, music. But, overall a C-.
M
Was expecting this to be a hot mess. Surprisingly good.
Childish I know but I really like Peter Rabbit from the beginning to the end from Peter Rabbit crashing into the birds to the rabbits winking together in unison. Haven’t seen Peter Rabbit 2 yet. I wonder if it’s as good.
Ps I try not to think about his dad turning into a rabbit pie, the Mr McGregor’s rabbit pie.
