Tag: Skyfall

[Early Review] 1917 (2019)

Director: Sam Mendes

Cast: George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman, Mark Strong, Andrew Scott, Richard Madden, Claire Dubercq, Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch

Screenplay: Sam Mendes, Krysty Wilson-Cairns

119 mins. Rated R for violence, some disturbing images, and language.

 

I knew very little of 1917 until I caught it at an early screening. The single trailer I had seen looked impressive, but I didn’t know about the task of creating the film that led to its most incredible and jaw-dropping feat, the fact that it was filmed and styled to look as though it were shot in a single take. At first thought, this film seemed like one that’s narrative may not allow for something as difficult as that to actually successfully happen, so how did it all turn out?

Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman, Before I Go to Sleep, Blinded by the Light) has been tasked with delivering an urgent message to Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game, Avengers: Endgame), and he has less than 24 hours to do it, as Mackenzie and his men are about to walk into an ambush that could lead to the deaths of 1,600 soldiers, including Blake’s older brother. Now, Blake and his fellow soldier and friend, Schofield (George MacKay, Captain Fantastic, Been So Long), have precious hours to complete their mission, and time is their greatest enemy in the journey.

Director Sam Mendes (Skyfall, Away We Go) always has a unique vision to his projects, and 1917 is no exception. It would seem that his time with the James Bond films has upped his ambition, and 1917 proves to be his most challenging visual film. As I stated earlier, he and cinematographer Roger Deakins (the greatest DP is history, just saying) have crafted their film to look as though it was shot in one long-continuous take. This requires a little bit of suspension of disbelief, as obviously their mission took longer than 120 minutes, but it’s more about the journey it puts the audience in than the realistic time-frame of the mission. For the most part, too, it’s an incredible feat of filmmaking. I couldn’t keep my eyes off the expertly-planned shots, and it did trick some people into thinking the film was done in a single-take.

Care should also be given to the editing. A film like 1917 wouldn’t work without someone able to stitch the whole thing together and create the illusion of a single-shot, single-take. The pacing of the overall film as sequences flow from one to another is only able to keep interest if the editing works, and it does.

Our two leads in Chapman and MacKay do some pretty good work together. Neither of them are the best of the year performers, but given minimal dialogue and a mostly physical performance from both, there’s a level of strained-friendship and brotherhood between the two of them, something that war and battle have the ability to create in its soldiers.

The screenplay, Mendes’s first, co-written with Krysty Wilson-Cairnes, is mostly incredible, but I feel like it didn’t service the two leads with enough character development to really flesh them out for the audience. There’s some emotional beats in the film that would have been better served if the characters were more-layered early on in the film. Blake and Schofield are developed through their actions quite nicely, but I just needed more character.

The rest of the supporting cast is exemplary in the film. In order to elevate the two relative newcomers in the lead roles, Mendes and the casting director placed as many upper-talent supporting roles in place to help, and it’s great to see so many fine actors supporting the journey, and it works to elevate MacKay and Chapman through interaction.

1917 is an excellent war film, one of the best ever put to film. This is an instant classic in so many ways as it illustrates the unrelenting nature of battle and war and the toll it takes on those involved. It’s also a story of brotherhood among soldiers and a promise made, and I was absolutely enthralled in it from start to finish. For a film done seemingly in one shot, there are countless sequences that are seared into my brain and I can’t stop thinking about it. This will stay with you long after leaving the theater.

 

4.5/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

 

 

For my review of Sam Mendes’s Spectre, click here.

4

Christoph Waltz to Return as Blofeld in Bond 25

The as-yet-untitled Bond 25 will see a familiar face joining Daniel Craig, Ralph Fiennes, Lea Seydoux, and Naomie Harris. Actor Christopher Waltz, who played the villainous Blofeld in Spectre, will return to play him in the upcoming sequel, according to The Daily Mail.

Blofeld, previously portrayed by Donald Pleasance, Telly Savalas, and Charles Gray in the main franchise, is the ultimate baddy of the Bond franchise, having appeared in a large number of installments, pulling the strings in the background of the evil Spectre.

The film is being directed by Cary Joji Fukunaga of True Detective fame and will feature many more returning faces, but I was shocked and pleased to learn that Waltz was one of them.

Spectre was not beloved by Bond fans in the same way Casino Royale and Skyfall were. I think the updates made to Blofeld in this new iteration of Bond didn’t really go over well, even though I’ve always found Waltz to be one of the most incredible performers working today, and I rather like his take on the villain. I like the idea of an antithesis to James Bond, and Blofeld is just that. Spectre did a lot of work tying the Daniel Craig saga together, and I think it would be odd to completely ignore it for the final installment of Craig’s run as the spy.

So what do you think? Should they ignore Blofeld or include him in Bond 25? Let me know/Drop a comment below!

 

-Kyle A. Goethe

0

Moonlight (2016)

Director: Barry Jenkins

Cast: Mahershala Ali, Duan Sanderson, Trevante Rhodes, Andre Holland, Janelle Monae, Ashton Sanders, Jharrel Jerome, Naomie Harris

Screenplay: Barry Jenkins

111 mins. Rated R for sexuality, drug use, brief violence, and language throughout.

  • Academy Award Winner: Best Motion Picture of the Year
  • Academy Award Winner: Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role (Mahershala Ali)
  • Academy Award Winner: Best Adapted Screenplay
  • Academy Award Nominee: Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role (Naomie Harris)
  • Academy Award Nominee: Best Achievement in Directing
  • Academy Award Nominee: Best Achievement in Cinematography
  • Academy Award Nominee: Best Acheivement in Film Editing
  • Academy Award Nominee: Best Achievment in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score

 

Don’t get upset. Moonlight won Best Picture and La La Land did not. Don’t be angry. I foresaw the win (but not the controversy) but needed to see the film before making my own judgment call. I needed to see for myself what the hubbub was all about. I’ve now seen Moonlight several times, and it’s one of the best and most important films you will ever see.

Moonlight’s storytelling technique is a little complex, so I’ll explain. Moonlight is in three pieces, each showcasing a different period in the life of Chiron. In each of the three key pieces, Chiron is played by a different actor of course. There is Little (Alex Hibbert), Chiron (Ashton Sanders, Straight Outta Compton, The Retrieval) and Black (Trevante Rhodes, The Night is Young, Open Windows). The narrative explores Chiron’s upbringing, his relationship with drug dealer Juan (Mahershala Ali, TV’s House of Cards, Free State of Jones) and his mother Paula (Naomie Harris, Skyfall, Collateral Beauty), and the themes of sexuality and identity that run through Chiron’s blood. It is an elegant and powerful tale.

The strength of Moonlight comes from the incredible ensemble both in front and behind the camera. The performances from Ali and Harris first spring to mind, but all three actors playing Chiron are just incredible.

Director Barry Jenkins (Medicine for Melancholy) put together a great team from a technical standpoint, bathing each stage of Chiron’s life in a different color tone. The film is gorgeously shot and expertly edited into a tight runtime that leaves little out of place. In fact, each piece of the story has its own musical cues and moments to play with. It almost feels like you could watch any one part of the story as a short film and be quite satisfied, but in the grander scheme, Chiron’s life comes into full view.

Moonlight is damn impressive, and very deserving of the Best Picture Oscar it took back from La La Land. I love both films, but I think Moonlight is exactly what it sets out to be and narrowly edges out La La Land. This is impressive filmmaking at its core, and I highly recommend you see it immediately.

 

5/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

4

The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death (2014)

 thewomaninblack2angelofdeath2014a

Director: Tom Harper

Cast: Phoebe Fox, Jeremy Irvine, Helen McCrory, Adrian Rawlins, Leanne Best, Ned Dennehy

Screenplay: Jon Croker

98 mins. Rated PG-13 for some disturbing and frightening imagery and for thematic elements.

 

Ah, the January movie dump bin…how tragic.

thewomaninblack2angelofdeath2014c

Decades after the events of the first film, Eve Parkins (Phoebe Fox, One Day, War Book) and Jean Hogg (Helen McCrory, TV’s Penny Dreadful, Skyfall) have taken their schoolchildren to the Eel Marsh House in Crythin Gifford as a place of refuge. Eve doesn’t fully understand, though, that a dark force still resides in the house and wants the children for herself. Now, Eve and her new friend Harry (Jeremy Irvine, War Horse, Beyond the Reach) must discover the horrifying truth about the Woman in Black (Leanne Best, TV’s Ripper Street, Salting the Battlefield).

Helen McCrory is kind of a bish in this movie. Yeah, I said it. Bish.

There are two classic types of characters in horror films. The first is the character that you want to live. The second is the character that you want to die. Then, there are the characters of The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death, the type of character that you just want to be interested in, but you still don’t. Not a single character is performed in such a way that I cared about any of them.

Don’t even get me started on the look of this film. It certainly has less elegance to it than The Woman in Black, very poorly shot and very blurry during some of the sequences that should’ve been more exciting. The film was also very poorly lit. I couldn’t see a damn thing.

The question we need to be asking ourselves when seeing a sequel is: how are we progressing the story or taking the series in a new direction? With this bland sequel, we don’t have an answer. This film is unneeded and essentially rehashes the progression of the first film. We don’t move forward. We, in fact, move backward. I’m not even sure how that is possible, but it happened.

thewomaninblack2angelofdeath2014b

The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death goes nowhere when it makes a smart move that explore new territory by moving the story forward years. It could have built on the story presented of the first film, and then it didn’t.

 

1/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

 

0

Philomena (2013)

philomena

Director: Stephen Frears

Cast: Judi Dench, Steve Coogan

Screenplay: Steve Coogan, Jeff Pope

98 mins. Rated PG-13 for some strong language, thematic elements and sexual references.

 

At this point, I’ve seen each of the ten Best Picture nominees from this past year’s Academy Awards, and I will admit this: the surprise win of the year is Philomena, a delightful little film about a woman on a search to find the son she gave up decades previous and the writer looking for a story who joins her. It is a simple premise with an extraordinary path waiting to develop. Judi Dench (Skyfall, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel) is Philomena Lee, and easily deserves the nomination she received for her performance. Her character is equal parts comedic genius and devastating regret. I recall the connection I had with this woman just watching her struggle with maintaining a positive outlook on her often dismal journey.

Steve Coogan (Alan Partridge, Despicable Me 2) is Martin Sixsmith, a disgraced writer who takes on Philomena’s life as a possible return to success. Their relationship is what makes this film so magical. The way Philomena views life and the discussions between her and Martin, I could listen to them discuss TV Guide. In fact, there is a sequence in which Philomena explains the plot of a romance novel to Martin, and I couldn’t stop giggling.

This is a film with the ability to be both the feel-good movie of the last year and the film to make you reflect on the regrets that you have made. It is thought-provoking, it is beautifully crafted by director Stephen Frears, and it is watchable.

philomena09

Philomena may be one of the most perfect unwatched movies of recent memory. Now why haven’t you watched it?

 

4.5/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

2

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑