This psychological drama which at times veers towards thriller/horror is one of the most impressive debut I’ve seen recently. It’s probably not the easiest watch, but there’s a lot to be impressed about.
“The Novice” of the title is Alex Dall, a college freshman
who joins her university’s rowing team with only one thing in mind: winning.
The film essentially is a character study which delves deep into the corrosive nature of Alex’s obsessive-compulsive behaviour, not just towards sport, but school and life in general. Her actions which pretty quickly start pushing away all the people around her, incluing her friends, team-mates and crucially her lover.
Hard to believe this is Lauren Hadaway’s first directorial effort: she seems to have a real understanding for not just visual storytelling but also all those movie-making techniques from editing to sound: jump cuts, kinetic camera movements, strange audio mixes all combined together to get the audience close to Alex’s fractured state of mind.
Meanwhile the stunning cinematography, with its beautiful calm dawn shots and reflection on water, conveys both the beauty and the pain of sport.
It’s easy to see echoes from films like “Whiplash” and “Black Swan”, both dealing with obsessions towards music, in the first instance and dance in the second, but Hadaway’s distinct style makes this a piece of its own.
The fact that she’s also written and edited the film, gives it a very personal distinctive aesthetic, whilst her decade-long experience in sound editing in mega-films like Justice League and The Hateful Eight shows at every beat and gives the film an extra dimension which enhances the pathos of the film.
All of this is at times may feel slightly over-done and possibly a bit intrusive, but I like to think it’s intentional given the character it’s trying to depict.
At the centre of this, Isabelle Fuhrman’s fierce and powerful performance (You might remember her from that very creepy, though rather silly, film called “Orphan”) is magnetic as well as infuriating and actually rather hateful too.
In the end however, the film remains more of an enigma for me, as the plot becomes slightly secondary to the mood it’s creating and the experience of it.
We don’t really learn what pushed Alex to be the person she is, nor what’s going to happen to her. All we’re left with is a very uncomfortable feeling which might even put you off sport for a while.
It’s a film that I admired more than loved, but I can’t wait to see what Hadaway does next.
The plot for the latest Michael Bay’s film is essentially an excuse to showcase a very prolonged car chase from beginning to end: after bank heist goes wrong, two brothers hijack an ambulance and set off on a high-speed pursuit that never seems to stop, as they try to keep their hostages alive.
For the last few decades Michael Bay’s movies have been synonymous of explosions, fast cutting, stylistic visuals, special effects, … and let’s be honest, dumb scripts and heavily objectifying women.
Critics (Mark Kermode being one of the most vocal) have been describing Bay’s way of filming actresses as “lascivious” and “pornographic” and have criticised the director’s constant sexist remarks and stereotypical female characters.
According to the “urban Dictionary” website “In order to appreciate his dumb shock and awe style, you must either be stupid enough to think on his level or smart enough not to care how intellectual a movie about robots and explosions is”. And while such definition feels harsh, I can’t help sharing some of that feeling too.
His over-dependency on slow motions, used pretty much every time there’s an explosion or a loud noise (so basically all the times in his films), have now become almost parody of the genre itself. Not to mention Bay’s love for low-angle shots looking up at characters getting out of cars.
The last Bay film I have actually enjoyed was probably “the Rock”, starring Sean Connery, Ed Harris and Nicholas Cage, and that was back in 1996.
Ever since then, the director has given us the silly “Armageddon”, the almost insulting “Pearl Harbour” and the abysmal Transformers movies. He’s also been producing some of the most pointless remakes of classic horrors from the 70s and 80s: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Amityville Horror, The Hitcher, Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street. None of which came even close to the originals and most of them were panned by critics and audiences alike.
So you can imagine my surprise when about half way through “Ambulance” I realised I wasn’t actually hating the film as much as I was expecting and in fact I thought it was quite entertaining, in a very “turn-your-brain-off” type of way. I was also pleased to notice that some of the most offending aspects of Bay’s sensibility had been finally turned off for the one.
There are in the film some obvious echoes from “Speed”, another movie constantly “on the move”, (though it’s more difficult to empathise with shouty-shouty Jake Gyllenhall as we did with Keanu Reeves) and while, of course, it is too long and Bay’s tendency to over-cut things, as if on steroids, his lack of self-aware humour and his love for showing off with his new drone-toy, which pointlessly flies up and down skyscrapers, along roads and across all sort rooms rather randomly, did get a little bit on my nerves, as an action flick, “Ambulance” is a perfectly serviceable one: it’s full of action set-pieces and it “does what it says on the tin”.
In fact I’d go even further and say that it’s one of the best films Bay has done in decades!
With the third instalment only days away, I had sudden realisation that not only I could not remember a single frame of the first film, but I have never actually seen the second either.
And so the decision to devote the next 5 hours of my life to catching up with the franchise (Dragging the poor unsuspecting family along with ride too) came quite naturally.
Before I start, I should probably state my credentials: I have read all the Harry Potter books (some of them multiple times) I’ve seen all the films (both on the big screen and on TV), I saw the play in West End, I’ve built all the possible Harry Potter LEGO sets, I have the the T-shirts (literally… in fact more than one), I can pretty much kick anyone’s butt playing all the various Wizarding Trivia Games out there and now I am raising a son who is beginning to know more than I do (except that he only got as far as book 5 and film 4, so I’m still winning).
All this to say that, on paper at least, I’m what could be described as the perfect target audience for this. And yet, the film somehow had managed to completely alienate me and made me turn away from the rest of the franchise.
Watching again it today (well, I say “again” but it was pretty much like I’d never seen it before), I was able to appreciate it a bit more and possibly see why this doesn’t work as well as some of the other stories from J.K. Rowling.
As well as producing the film, Rowling is also writing the screenplay here (though she’s sharing writing credits with Steve Kloves an expert in the Potterworld). One begins to wonder (well at least I do), whether she’s got a little bit too much power. It’s no secrets that the later HP books, the ones she wrote when she was already a massive success, need some serious editing. Clearly at that stage nobody dared to tell her anything. It seems something similar is going on here.
Novel writing and screenwriting obviously require two different skill sets, and it feels to me Rowling hasn’t fully cracked the latter yet.
You can take your time with things in a 600+ page novel to flesh out your characters, but in a script you have to do it economically and you’ve got to move quickly.
Her script has potentially good stuff in it, but it really needed a much more ruthless edit to it.
For a start the film is actually a bit confusing. I mean, I’ve seen it twice now and there are moments where I still wonder who wants what and why.
The story is over-stuffed with too many characters, most of whom are just there because of the 4 more films we’ve been promised after this. A lot of them are paper-thin, sketchy and next-to-irrelevant. We really could not care less whether they lived or die.
Eddie Redmayne, for example, may be a good actor in other films, but his Newt in this story is just not very interesting: he’s a weird, quiet (actually too quiet! I really needed subtitles to get through some of the mumbling), a bit goofy, an animal-lover who wants keep as many beasts as possible and to take care of them. That’s all we know about him at the start of the film… and that’s all we know at the end.
The Potter novels are mostly a coming-of-age story in a fantastical world, populated by three-dimensional characters so-well rounded often it’s often hard to pick one over the other as your favourite (or even most hateful).
Here there’s pretty much no story arc for anyone, except proably for Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler ) who really becomes the audience surrogate through which we learn about the wonders of the wizarding world.
Newt is instead a slippery sort of character, with no backstory, no love interest, no surprises. His total lack of any other distinguishing qualities makes it hard for us to fall in love with and actually makes it the wrong person to focus this story on. In fact he’s barely present in it, possibly because of the millions of other characters.
But aside from the confusing plot, clunky transitions, over-long sequences and dull characters, the depiction of both New York City during the Roaring Twenties and the magical world is actually beautifully done.
The production design crams so many elements and details within every frame that at times it ‘s almost overwhelming, especially once you add all the CGI (though I have to say, some that wasn’t that good).
All this will probably look amazing on a theme park ride, but in this film… Mmmm…. not so much.
I just felt it failed to tap into what made Harry Potter, with its Hogwarts, Diagon Alley, Gringotts, Quidditch, etc etc, so enduring and magical.
There’s no doubt that J.K. Rowling is one of the best modern writers alive.
She is responsible for single-handedly bringing children back to reading and then somehow she was also able to draw in the adults as well, by creating a series that was not just fun, moving, wondrous and magical, but also perceptive, clever, with subversive wit and a profound understanding of the human condition.
All of which makes the failings of this film feel even bigger.
I’m probably been too harsh (and apparently I have to save some of the bitterness for its sequels), after all “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” has got magic, adventure, comedy, lots of CGI and everything audiences want from a fantasy family film, so even if you may get lost in it, you’ll find enough to enjoy
“The lost city” tells the story of a writer of cheesy romance and adventure stories (Sandra Bullock), who finds herself victim of kidnap and is forced to embark on mission, not unlike the ones in her books paired up with a man she doesn’t really like.
If this premise sounds familiar, is because you’re probably thinking of “Romancing the Stone”, which pretty much shares the same plot (but who cares when the target audience might not even have heard of it?).
Directors/co-writers (and siblings) Aaron Nee & Adam Nee are clearly trying to evoke those classic treasure-hunting capers from the 80s, ripping off ideas and themes left and right.
The film even starts with two people locked up in an old tomb surrounded by snake, in an obvious “homage” to “Raiders of the Lost Ark”.
It never really takes itself too seriously (though that should not really an excuse for not making much sense), prioritising the comedy over the actual thrills and adventures. This may pay dividends when the jokes land, and some of them really do, alas the overall result is a mix bag because when the film runs out of steams (and laughs), all you’re with are some sub-standard action set pieces, which eventually make it look more like “the Mummy” with Brandan Fraser, than an actual Indiana Jones flick (For that we’re going to have to wait another year, and I’ve got my fingers crossed!)
Mercifully, the top-notch cast saves the day. Next to the always likeable and reliable Sandra Bullock, Channing Tatum plays the hunky cover model from her books who, while he may look the part, he’s actually closer to be “the damsel in distress” rather than the dashing hero one might expect and in typical “role reverse fashion” he even take his shirt off a lot (in fact more than that, if you’re interested).
The two of them have good comedic timing and even if their appropriately awkward chemistry is a bit of a hit and miss (just like the rest of the film) and their bickering gets a tiny bit repetitive, there’s no denial that “The Lost City” rests on their shoulders and is eventually saved by them.
In a quite a random piece of miscast (possibly intentional, though I couldn’t tell) Daniel Radcliffe plays the baddie of the piece: an annoying and rather petulant billionaire with a squeaky voice, who’s after the “lost city” from the title.
Even Brad Pitt has an extended cameo, which is fun even if it seems to belong to a different movie altogether.
To conclude, just like “Uncharted” a few months ago, “Lost City” ends up being another of those dispensable movies, with some good stars, enjoyable to watch in the moment (I was never bored), but just like its bland title, is pretty uninspired and forgettable the moment you’ll leave the cinema (or more likely, turn off your streaming platform when it comes out in a few months).
I’ve been spotting some very scathing reviews around the internet about this one, but to be honest I don’t really understand all the hate.
It might be because I’m still trying to recover that massive stinker that was “Moonfall” and I really needed some popcorn fun , or it might be because I’m beginning to grow a soft spot for little Tom Holland, or even because I’ve been craving for another Indiana Jones-like adventure for years, but I’ve actually quite enjoyed this one in a sort of unchallenging/turn-your-brain-off sort of way.
Of course, it’s not going to set the world on fire, nor it’s a game-changer, but it was a perfectly serviceable silly action-packed romp with couple of stand-out set pieces and which confirms Holland credentials as a likeable lead even outside his spider-suit.
It’s also a film that never really takes itself too seriously, so why should we?
Serving as a prequel to the video games by the same name (in fact, geeky-nerd that I am, I seem to remember the third game had some flashbacks too), it follows Nathan Drake, a bartender, history buff, and occasional pickpocket, as he is recruited by Mark Wahlberg’s character (Sully, also from the game) to search for the lost treasure across the world.
The game itself was a rip-off other other Intellectual Properties like Tomb Raider and of course Indiana Jones, so it’s no surpise that the film too has constant echoes from those franchises: a sort of “Indy-light”. In fact at some point one character even asks “When did you decide to become Indiana Jones? proving that it knows exactly what it’s doing.
It may lack the charm, panache and confidence of those early fantastic Spielberg’s adventures, it is certainly better than any of the Tomb Raider films and it packs so much action that you’ll hardy stop question any shortcomings. Of course if you are a fan of the games, you’ll know it can do so much more
Holland has clearly biffed-up a lot for the role and it’s a pleasure to see him doing a lot of his stunts. Hopefully in future instalments a more skilful director might be able to make more of his innate charm and bring a little bit more depth to the character and the story.
As a fan of the games, I know this franchise can do so much more, but for the time being I was fine with it and enjoy this one thoroughly.
MovieGeekBlog 