Gods of Egypt 4/10
I think what my take away is once again that there are some directors that understand blue screen and effects and some do not. Some directors that get production design and mood and some that do not. Alex Proyas does not. He obviously just got lost time and time again without a background to shoot against. The editing suffers and the shoot suffers. As well, most everything is shot wide because of the expectation that millions of dollars of effects will fill the background, whatever that will be, later on. Not only does drama lose its edge but the movie gets far more expensive to constantly have to fill the BG. Then, as a result the budget must have been stretched so thin that animation of CGI characters took a huge hit.
A simple A to B against Exodus simply displays the craft of sets, production design, lighting, costuming, and restrained post that movie had in comparison that grounded it and made it far more believable with the same budget.
The actors, who are great in everything else they have been in, look embarrassed and embarrassing. So about the casting, yeah these actors were the wrong ones. They don't even look close to Egyptians and they didn't even try to justify or rationalize that the gods are gods of the world to sneak past their casting mistake. When you drop a white person into these aesthetics of Egypt it looks the kind of cheesy cheap you'd expect of a So Cal metal band that has an album with songs like "Pyramids of the Dead" and "Hieroglyphic Incantations" where the closest they have been to Egypt is hole number 9 at the local mini golf.
You can watch it like a silly Sinbad, Jason and the Argonauts, or Clash of the Titans style film and pull some enjoyment out of it, but it doesn't near equal those mostly because the craft behind it is so poor and often mastrabatory.
I also saw the other day, trippier than i was expecting.Daughters of the Dust (1991): The first film by an African American woman to get theatrical distribution; it's rather disquieting that it took until 1991 for that to happen, and even then it was an arthouse-only deal. This is often mentioned in cinephile circles as an overlooked classic, but I can't assent to that view, myself. Obligatory mention that I'm not within the main target audience for this sort of narrative, but anyway: Dash's storytelling/visual style is at times a lot like Terrence Malick, and it has the same tendency to both intrigue and frustrate me. At its best my interest in it was mainly in seeing the depiction of such a specific time and cultural setting, but I was never invested in anything happening, and at times I really just had no idea what was going on (like at the end, when suddenly.an Indian rides up on a horse and one of the women joins him and they ride off together. I checked the plot summary afterward and apparently that guy was a pre-existing character, but I had no clue about it
It Follows is a masterclass imo... least in terms of tone and structuring and just crafting a weird, believable world. One of my favorite aspects about it is the anachronistic setting. Just adds ever so much to the sensation of familiarity, yet eeriness.
Disagree on character development, most of the characters have satisfying arcs and development. It's not complex but working off a simple plot, it's appropriate. The characters at the end of the movie are different from the beginning in significant ways. The final setpiece is wild with the reversing and one climax action of it was foreshadowed by Baby's action in the shop room with a toy car. Lots of good setups and payoffs.Saw Baby Driver the other night as part of Odeon's Screen Unseen.
By the time Baby Driver reaches its second act, what was at first a cool and interesting editing gimmick becomes tired and stale.
From a technical point of view, Baby Driver is amazing from Wright's use of the camera to how much information he is able to squeeze into his quick kinetic edits or his long single take shots.
Where Baby Driver falls down for me is the story. It's simplistic and is only there to bring us from set piece to set piece and offers little in proper character development.
It Follows is a masterclass imo... least in terms of tone and structuring and just crafting a weird, believable world. One of my favorite aspects about it is the anachronistic setting. Just adds ever so much to the sensation of familiarity, yet eeriness.
Maybe something where the lady floating in space is picked up, and then her and a ragtag group of Marines take on the creature which by now has multiplied so there's a whole bunch of them.Life (2017)
That said, I'd be down for a sequel.
Sure, why not. Bring in Eddie Murphy and Martin Lawrence from the other Life as well.Maybe something where the lady floating in space is picked up, and then her and a ragtag group of Marines take on the creature which by now has multiplied so there's a whole bunch of them.
Such a waste. Fuck Brad Pitt.David Fincher to direct World War Z sequel
welp, guess I am excited again.
Anyone know if The Bad Batch is any good? Dystopian sci-fi, just released and starring Keanu Reeves. Reviews seem to be split down the middle. Anyone seen it?
Armond White gave Baby Driver a fresh rating.
Time to bail out friends.
He even employs a new little robot, in the mode of The Phantom Menaces BB-8, which rolls around the explosive, pyrotechnic chaos while humans and bigger bots enact endless repetitions of Road Runnerstyle slapstick violence, acrobatics, and painlessness in strangely empty cities. By trying to outdo James Cameron, Peter Jackson, and Christopher Nolan, Bay must have forgotten that he used to be the superior artist.
Armond White gave Baby Driver a fresh rating.
Time to bail out friends.
I've been on a Jeff Nichols binge the past few weeks. I watched Mud last year, but I've watched Shotgun Stories, Take Shelter and Midnight Special in pretty quick succession this month and he's probably one of my favorite directors working right now. I'll be watching Loving this weekend, too, which I'm looking forward to as I also love Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga.
I can definitely see why some people think his movies are boring, but he's really great at capturing emotion and relationships. Of course, it helps that he has Michael Shannon in everything. Take Shelter is probably my favorite of the bunch and part of that is Michael Shannon's amazing performance.
He went after Sofia Coppola in the same article, and that I can't abide by, and so it evens out.
Also, in his Transformers "review":
Oh, Armond...
I've been on a Jeff Nichols binge the past few weeks. I watched Mud last year, but I've watched Shotgun Stories, Take Shelter and Midnight Special in pretty quick succession this month and he's probably one of my favorite directors working right now. I'll be watching Loving this weekend, too, which I'm looking forward to as I also love Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga.
I can definitely see why some people think his movies are boring, but he's really great at capturing emotion and relationships. Of course, it helps that he has Michael Sohannon in everything. Take Shelter is probably my favorite of the bunch and part of that is Michael Shannon's amazing performance.