ReelSociety Forums

Buscemi2 wrote:Bad Samaritan 1/10

What starts as a cheap ripoff of Don't Breathe turns into a ridiculous thriller that calls back to the worst direct-to-video thrillers of the 2000's. Dean Devlin's self-financed vanity project has no redeeming values and runs far too long at nearly two hours (twenty minutes of edits could have made things a bit more tolerable). It looks cheap, the characters aren't very interesting (and Six might get a few laughs about the protagonist being Irish for no particular reason), and people seem to be able to survive damn near anything (at least two characters survive long falls that should have either killed them or caused serious injury) but the biggest problem lays in David Tennant's performance. His scenery chewing and attempts at being intense are downright laughable. It's as if he was only cast in the film to bring in Doctor Who fans (the only people who seem to like the film). He is so wrong for this role and he brings no sense of believability to the role (though I'm sure even the best actor couldn't make this script work).

The summer movie season is only two weeks old but we already have a contender for the worst.

Did you see Tennant in Season One of Jessica Jones?

I have not. But I'd imagine Melissa Rosenberg is better at running things than Dean Devlin.

Tennant was pretty OTT. I know you're a big Krysten Ritter fan, though, so you should check it out.

I'll need some days to spare. I've got movie screenings to attend and scripts to write.

Final Portrait 8/10

The last days of Alberto Giacometti and his relationship with reluctant artist model James Lord creates for an interesting biopic which uses its empty facade to its advantage. Geoffrey Rush, who's made a career out of playing these eccentric characters, delivers as the perfectionist artist who in between drunken escapades and whirlwind romances with multiple women cannot seem to be fully satisfied with his work. Armie Hammer, though not as strong here as in Call Me by Your Name, is serviceable as Lord. Tony Shalhoub also does well as Alberto's brother. Stanley Tucci, one of the better actor-turned-directors, excels in depicting 1960's Paris to the screen and avoids making it your typical 60's snapshot by focusing more on the relationship (your usual Hollywood film would spend more time pandering to nostalgia). Some might complain that it's too short but 90 minutes is the right length for this kind of film (at least some filmmakers understand brevity).

Finding Your Feet 7/10

A standard plot of separation and rediscovering lost memories (while also being quite similar to 2012's Song for Marion) is elevated by the strength of the three leads. Imelda Staunton goes the opposite of Dolores Umbridge by playing a character who starts out as frigid but gradually becomes the kind-hearted person we know she really is. But the best performances are from Timothy Spall as a handyman who gets Staunton out of her shell through the power of dance and Celia Imrie as Staunton's kooky sister.

I'm quite surprised that the US hasn't tried to adapt this feel-good formula of film that the UK is so fond of. It sells well domestically and abroad (lots of Anglophilia overseas), they usually attract the finest actors, and they don't cost much to make. But I guess that greed beats feels in the States.

Also, I will not be surprised to see this adapted for the stage in the next few years. Kinky Boots did well so why not?

Solo: 5/10
Oh dear, what a mess of a film. Two completely different styles and tones are fighting to make something coherent, and instead the very opposite happens. There are ghosts of Lord and Miller's approach to the Han Solo origin story, most significantly in the moments of wit and surprise, and in characters such as L3 (surely a satire on the "SJW" that hardcore SW fans are currently bemoaning?). In the first half there are a handful of good, amusing moments. Although they're directed or edited poorly by Howard, the usual Lord and Miller quickfire pace ignored for overly signposted moments, as if Howard is nudging you in the ribs and repeating "eh, eh?" until you get that it's a joke, even though you knew already.

The second half becomes more of a mess, becoming mroe earnest with some reveals about who is good and who is bad, but the climax is poor (is there even one?), and the villain turns out to be generic. The film forgets itself half the time (the betrayal of Qira is never even acknowledged, from what I remember!) and the references to the world, particularly one cameo, goes nowhere. As for performances, Alden Ehrenreich struggles but has charm, Clarke is poor and their chemistry is weak, with only Glover's natural charisma as Lando being notable.

Folks were right to ignore this film. It's pretty forgettable, and only makes me appreciate the bold decisions of The Last Jedi even more.

Solo was pretty disappointing. Howard made it a bit of a slog. Ehrenreich didn't have the wit or charm of a Han Solo. I'd have preferred Taron Egerton when the finalists were announced, but thought they did a decent job casting Han at the time. Glover was slightly disappointing, just because of all the praise I'd heard of beforehand. Bettany was as good as usual. Woody was a bit of a bright spot as was L7. I wish they'd have just let Lord and Miller do what they wanted. I could have lived with a bad Lord and Miller as it would have at least had a bit of creativity.

It was just a pretty dull movie where every once in a while they say "Hey. Hey.... Remember this from STAR WARS?!?!" "Remember when he said that about Chewbacca in Episode V!?!?!" "Remember?"

And the Darth Maul cameo? At first I'm like, "This is kinda cool." Then I think "Wait. He was chopped in half like forty fucking years ago." And, "There can only be two Siths, apprentice and master. No more. No less... Right?"

Well said, W, and yeah, in relation to your spoiler I was very confused when I tried to do the math.

numbersix wrote:Well said, W, and yeah, in relation to your spoiler I was very confused when I tried to do the math.

No shit. It doesn't work at all. Darth Maul was killed before Luke & Leia were even born, and it would be at least another ten years before Padme gave birth to then. Assuming Luke & Leia were in their early twenties in A New Hope, and Han Solo was, at his oldest, in his late 30s, where as in Solo he too was in his early 20's... no.

Unless Darth Maul didn't die. Maybe he regrew himself a bottom half like Deadpool did. (Baby balls!)

SPOILERS, dude!!!

GOD DAMN IT SHRYKE









(Just kidding pal. I already had the Maul cameo spoiled for me over the weekend.

Maybe they'll explain what happened to those independent contractors after the second Death Star exploded now.

Sorry. Dammit. Anyone got a time machine I can borrow? I'll even take the hot tub variety...

Haha, Shryke.

Actually, I found some answers on his issue.

So apparently in the Star Wars extended universe Darth Maul actually survived, despite being cut in half. He lived, dragged his way out and, like Anakin, replaced his missing limbs with robotic parts. In Solo when he gets up apparently you can see the robo-legs for a second. And in the ancillary literature he dropped his Darth moniker and just became Maul, a high level galactic gangster. Not sure how the all-powerful Darth Sidious doesn't know or care about this, though.