We are in a coastal community called Hope near the Korean Demilitarised Zone. The first hour goes in a flash as all we see is the devastation caused by what? We don't see a monster for 45 minutes. We are at first following the chief of police of Hope Harbour as clueless as we are as to what is going on. It's when we meet a rookie female officer that things get interesting as she bursts onto the screen, a dab hand with her multiple firearms that brings down the creature. This first part of the movie is incredible, as we see the battered township, worth seeing just for the set.
So the first half is great, but then it changes into three separate plots set in a forest and on a mountain road. I know we needed a rest after the chaos of the first hour, but the search for any other monsters is not so good. There is a lot of CGI, and I was disappointed by the final part. But I was impressed by the huge widescreen at the Hemel Hempstead Cineworld to accommodate the 2.35:1 ratio. The look of the film was spectacular.
I was thinking about leaving during the first half of Sense and Sensibility; it was all pretty boring. But I'm glad I stayed as the story begins to get better and better. I didn't know the story from the book, but there is no guessing what is going to happen. Georgia Oakley has made a decent attempt at giving Jane Austen's 1811 novel a modern interpretation. The two sisters are well played by Daisy Edgar-Jones and Esme Creed-Miles, but the star of the show is Fiona Shaw as Mrs Jennings. Her performance deserves an Oscar nomination at the very least. She was the only one of the actors whose speech I could clearly hear. The rest may be only fifty per cent. Obviously, the costumes and sets are fine, but I just hate these films that veer towards arthouse movies with shots of wildlife and fauna punctuatiing important scenes.
Hadley Freeman in the Sunday Times was not impressed; she thought it looked too dark, as the sun never shone. I found that there was a lot of sunshine and blue skies. It was just the way it was shot, with a natural look rather than cinematic lighting. Apparently it was all shot on film (not digital) with "an emphasis on natural lighting, candlelit scenes, and on location shhooting". So nothing in the studio. Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian refers to Ang Lee's "celebrated 1995 movie" with that all-star cast. Emma Thomson and Kate Winslett played Elinor and Marianne Dashwood. Here is "a more downbeat, ruminative version".
Where do I start with Digger? I haven't seen all of Alejandro Inarritu's films, but these are all memorable: Ameros Peros, 21 Grams, Babel (my favourite), Birdman and The Revenant. We have been asked not to reveal any details of the plot, and I can understand why. There are lots of spoilers in many online reviews, but I won't join them. Someone said, "You can't talk about it without spoiling what makes it, in my eyes, a masterpiece. Or completely terrible". Take your pick.
Let's talk about the cast. I guess it has to start with Tom Cruise in the title role. He has the most to say, but it seems like one long rant, for one reason or another. A better actor would have made more of the script. So Tom, leave drama to the grown-ups. Like Riz Ahmed as Ganesh, his chief scientist. A shoe-in for at least an Oscar nomination. John Goodman is fine as the president; better is Sandra Huller as Digger's sister. Almost a quieter counterpoint to Cruise's Digger, but not quite. And a shout-out for Jesse Plumons as the producer, and he does well with his big speech at the end.
Back to the story, it isn't that far in when we understand why the first part seems so weird. However, this is, in its own way, an interesting take on the climate crisis. There are also elements of Dr Strangelove. I thought I might be the only one who thought that, but no. There is a feeling of an attack on America and its love of oil. Are you watching Donald? The film itself has, apparently, bombed at the box office, but maybe in the future it could be recognised as an important film. But yes, it's too loud and too long, and the speech is too fast. But there is a method in all of that, even if it's not an easy watch. I found it gripping, as it won't let you go. But I thought that it could have been cut by twenty minutes.
The director has said, "It's a disaster movie where the disaster is us." One review said it had "an insidiously clever method to the madness". But Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian called it "labourious" in his two-star review. Hadley Freeman in the Sunday Times said, "It takes cojones to make an environmental disaster comedy, but the constant jumps between storylines are irksome rather than illuminating."
No comments:
Post a Comment