catcave

What will happen soon though is a monthly review of things seen, watched, played and experienced, plus the musings of a new cat...

Greatest Shatner and Nimoy picture ever!

Well worth watching, at times the photography is immense getting across the grime of London versus the vastness of Africa, strong performances and an fascinating story.

Sully, Miracle on the Hudson (to give it the full title).  This goes back to US Airways Flight 1584 which suffered a significant bird strike shortly after taking off from La Guardia airport in January 2009 (geese getting in the way of a jet clearly can cause significant issues!).  The captain Chesley Sullenberger and Jeff Skiles piloted the plane to a successful water landing on the freezing Hudson and all one hundred and fifty five passengers survived with some suffering minor injuries.  It truly was a true miracle in most respects and clearly an amazing display of piloting prowess.  Tom Hanks plays the part as respectable, elder statesman like captain who is quiet and contained brilliantly.  Aaron Eckhart does a great counterpoint job as the first officer.  Sully was hailed in the press as a hero and his celebrity extended throughout the media following the incident in 2009.  The film is solid and Clint Eastwood directs a movie where in effect most people watching are well aware of the two hundred and eighteen second flight and the happy outcome.  The problem is that to create a dramatisation of events (which clearly had to outlast the two hundred seconds or so of the flight) the writers developed a theory where Sully’s actions were investigated to the point where his reputation and career could be jeopardised.  Certainly on hearing interviews it was my understanding that this element did not happen in the dramatic and near career destroying way that was suggested.  That sort of ruined the premise and the story a little for me.  The film tells a fairly simple and delightful story well, but in my view it was marred by the nature of the investigation and the perhaps falseness around this.  This is a solid and enjoyable film, but factually perhaps inaccurate and for me that grates!  Clint Eastwood reportedly stated that the film needed a villain, but I am not sure this was the best way.  Benzon who was the air crash investigator spoke of the deferential treatment of Sully and the benign way that interviews were conducted.  If however you can accept this as a documentary and drama rolled into one, then maybe these issues don’t worry you too much!

I found it a little thought provoking, perhaps a little light for some of the aspects that it was dealing with, but ultimately a decent enough film which superficially looked at the nature of relationships, isolation and hope. Mortem Tyldum does a great job direction wise, perhaps the writing could have been tighter towards the end and a little more thought provoking. To be frank though, I enjoyed it and feel no where near as negative about it as many!

Edge of Seventeen revisits the golden age of John Hughes films and demonstrates that teen angst and comedy, if done well, captures you, entertains you and draws you in. Following the usual geeky girl, in love with the wrong boy whilst her best friend dates her older brother, this is a film which manages not to simply be lost in a comedic sheen. It manages to have real depth, looking at loss and emotion effectively, creating situations where the viewer curls their toes, such is the realism (and remembrance) of this moments when you get knocked back or your first love is not what is to be expected or your best friend lets you down in unimaginable ways. Snappily and amusingly written by Kelly Fermin Craig he also shows his hand as a tight and punchy director. The main protagonists play their parts brilliantly, Hayley Stienfeld, Hayley Lu Richardson and Blake Jenner. Gravitas (such as it is) is brought by Woody Harrleson who does a passing impression of Uncle Buck and is superb (he has some fantastic lines). Can't recommend heartily enough!

Finished watching (we had to do it in two parts, partly because it didn’t hold my imagination and partly due to tiredness) X Men: Apocalypse.  I was surprised, it really was awful.  The premise, an ancient all powerful mutant really did not come across well.  There was no sort of fear factor and he was well, a bit boring and not really as sinister as they were trying to make out.  There was the now compulsory destruction on a massive and epic scale, but it didn’t really convey anything to the viewer.  Brian Singer needs to give up attempting to re-live the glory days of the first and second films.  I have enjoyed McAvoy’s Professor X, Fassbender can’t really do any wrong as Magneto and Lawrence in previous films has been interesting as Raven/Mystique, but in this film, the sum of the parts (and even their acting, Fassbender particularly does some very meaningful stuff when allowed with his character) does not equal anything at all.  The character interplay is poor.  There is little in terms of Mystique’s loyalties between Eric and Charles, nor any proper interplay between those two either.  It is not really clear why decisions are made by characters to change paths they had been on for much of the film.  I’d say it is the worst film I’ve watched for quite some time, particularly in terms of superhero flicks.  I love the Marvel world, but they seem to be able to do so much right where Fox and Sony do not.  I think Man of Steel and Batman and Superman were perhaps better than this, and that really is not a compliment!  It makes you realise what a lot Netflix is doing with their Marvel shows, Luke Cage their most recent is so slick, interesting and deep it makes something like this pale completely into insignificance.

Peter Feig directs Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig and Kate McKinnon reasonably but this isn’t bridesmaids with ghosts. Their characters were really promising but lacked development. The script didn’t develop into something tangible and interesting. It falls well short of the mark and whilst there are some thoughtful nods to the original (Bill Murray, Sigourney Weaver and the receptionist all feature as does Mr Staypuff) it is no where near as inventive, funny or lovable, maybe this is my love of the original talking. I’m surprised it was certified fresh as this in my view was at best an average popcorn flick. Shame! Must say Chris Hemsworth character really was the most annoying element - he pulled off the goof well, but it didn’t add anything other than some slap stick stupidity that the film didn’t need.

Well, a couple of recent postings and some determination to at least start doing the odd review again! Why so long away? Well movie watching has lapsed a little due to two small humans and when said movies are viewed it is usually time for immediate sleep! But hopefully we can continue some padding and purring about all sorts of topics!

Just completed the marathon that is Zack Synder’s Batman vs Superman. Err, I thought Ben Affleck made a great knight of the night and Henry Cavell continued from where he left off in Man of Steel. I think those two statements go against the generally negative reviews the film got. I think the biggest complaint was it plodded in the non-action scenes albeit successfully creating a dark and dystopian world where there is despair and evil in even the most pure heart. The action sequences were as Man of Steel, huge, too long and it was difficult to buy into what was occurring, though I do think Synder is right about the fact that when godlike aliens fight on earth the destruction would be immense and to that kind of scale. It is incomparable though to the battle for New York in the Avengers film which has similar scale but manages better to put across powerful mortals and immortals rampaging across a city and the human and emotional cost of it. What is noticeable is a wholesale lack of humour. Jessie Eisenberg is a brilliant Lex Luthor and this brings one or two moments of madness, but the touchstones of humour, Alfred (Jeremy Irons clearly considered carefully the Alfred from the 1990s cartoon series) or Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman appearing to some amusing dialogue just were not there. It isn’t a terrible film and didn’t deserve the criticism it garnered, but it falls short of the Nolan or Wheldon films by some margin. Potential, yes, but too much that isn’t quite mixed and baked properly!

Just watched Creed, starring Sylvester Stallone and Michael B Jordan. Rocky trains Adonis, Apollo Creed’s illegitimate son in a sort of full circle re-imaging of Rocky. The interplay between the two characters and the emotion really is captured by Ryan Coogler’s direction and you get a sense of old mets new in terms of the 1976 classic and 2015 picture. It is really superbly done and the manner in which Stallone who got a best supporting actor nomination for the film has brought Rocky through the decades is actually sublime and shows him to be far more than the action hack many perceive. Of course he wrote the original and clearly has always had massive potential. It feels like a meaningful popcorn flick. I now have to sit and watch the rest of them!

Watched the Edgar Wright written Ant Man starring Paul Rudd as Scott and Michael Douglas as Pim. The idea of a shrinking super hero is a bit weird, the effects had to be managed carefully and the story was fairly light hearted, but I imagine this is because we are approaching phase three of the Marvel story and there was a need to perhaps lessen the darkness. It was slightly reminiscent of the first Iron Man though the effects seemed to be ever so slightly less cohesive. Probably the nature of shrinking things and riding ants. The final battle scene is well crafted though!

To be quite frank it was a movie version of the Walking Dead without any of the interesting back story, characters or tension. Pitt does admirably as the hero, but the film simply moves from one disaster to another until a way of resolving the Zombie problem suddenly comes to mind! It truly is a popcorn throw a way movie but it is well put together by director Marc Foster. Okay for two hours but that really is it. I would stick with the book by Max Brooks.

Dallas Buyer Club. Matthew McConaughy is unbelievable (and deserved the Oscar) but immediate thoughts are that I'm not sure I liked the way it was out together. Awesome story, convincing and superb acting by all involved Jennifer Garner and Jared Leto included. Historically very relevant (though not accurate) and touching, just not sure about how the building blocks of the real story were used. The significant problem was the last fifteen minutes of the film, everything was tied up with a few words on a black screen and the poignant and emotion of the movie was last somewhat. Still amazing and well worth seeing. It should be noted that Ron Woodruff was not homophobic, though it is understandable why artistic license to create a point is utilised in a film with such a powerful story.

It’s been around a long time, but it was genuinely a heart in mouth, emotional thriller which highlights the plight of African’s who have been subjected to Civil War for a country’s natural resources. The film focuses on Sierra Leone, which in the late 90s was a country devastated by civil war, much of it around the diamond trade. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Archer, a diamond smuggler, who befriends Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) a man who has lost everything at the hands of rebel forces. Added into the mix is Jennifer Connelly playing a journalist attempting to build a story on conflict diamonds. This set the scene for a moving, thrilling and action packed thriller which for short periods can be a difficult watch. Poignant and perhaps giving (albeit) a Hollywood insight into the diamond trade and its victims, this is a film which is very much worth seeing for many reasons, not least the fact it is an amazing film.