Dune: Part Two is an amazingly well-shot movie that transports you to another world and mesmerizes you with its sound and visuals. But the story just doesn't live up to the hype. Contrary to all the epic tales, this film wants to compare itself with, like Star Wars, Lawrence of Arabia, Avatar, or even The Man Who Would Be King, about men that were destined to rule a tribe living in the wilderness into rebellion, this film just isn't exciting enough while getting towards the goal, nor is it fulfilling in its third act. Simply put, we have no happy ending. In fact, we have no ending since Denis Villeneuve pulls another surprise at the very last moment, like he's done with Dune (later revealed to be "Part One" only on-screen and not in its marketing) and leaves audiences hanging for yet another two or three years, to find out if he'll get the next installment financed, and perhaps finally finish this story! By then, we'll all have forgotten the plot points of part two, as we did with part one. And all the hype about "the best sci-fi movie of all time" will also fade away. What will remain is an immensely crafted film with great visual storytelling and monumental work in cinematography, sound-design, editing, music, art direction, set decoration, costumes, and makeup. A feast for our eyes and ears for almost three hours but not much more. For most of the film, you'll find yourself amazed at the spectacle while trying to understand what's going on instead of being excited about where all this will lead. It's definitely worth a visit to the cinema, but don't expect much to stick, once the dust settles.
B+
Trailer: https://youtu.be/_YUzQa_1RCE
4 notes
·
View notes
The Super Mario Bros. Movie: Review
It's-a meh
With the riotous fun of Dungeons and Dragons: Honour of Thieves and HBO’s compelling Last of Us series, it’s easy to forget just how bumpy the history of video game adaptations has been. In many ways, 1993’s Super Mario Bros. set the example for what not to do, stripping the game of its colour and carefree tone. Three decades later, The Super Mario Bros. Movie goes in the opposite direction, but ends up prioritizing fan service over a decent story.
For better or for worse, the plot feels stripped straight from the Mario games - which aren’t known for being plot-heavy to begin with. Mario (Chris Pratt) and hapless brother Luigi (Charlie Day) are two Brooklyn-based plumbers whose attempts to strike out with their own business haven’t quite gone to plan. Trying to make a name for themselves, they randomly find themselves pulled into a colourful alternative universe through the Brooklyn pipe system. But while Mario lands on his feet in the cheery Mushroom Kingdom, Luigi falls into the clutches of lonely villain Bowser (Jack Black), who has sinister plans to marry Princess Peach (Anya Taylor-Joy).
As Mario sets off on an unlikely quest to free his brother, we follow a familiar story about an average joe who is somehow destined for great things. Set in a beautifully realized world, children will lap up the colourful visuals and stunning animation, while Mario fans will be delighted with the sheer attention to detail here. Pretty much every aspect of the games is lovingly accounted for, from the cool question mark power-ups to the irritatingly cutesy side character Toad (Keegan-Michael Key).
If only as much love was lavished on its story and characters. Written by Matthew Fogel, who had a hand in Minions: The Rise of Gru and Lego Movie 2: The Second Part, the film struggles to make you care for any of its characters, least of all Pratt’s Mario, who feels a bit bland. Instead, it feels more concerned with shoe-horning aspects of the game in a way that doesn’t feel natural - right down to Mario’s signature catchphrases.
In place of an interesting plot, what you get is an episodic trip through some of the game’s biggest highlights. Want to see some Mario Kart scenes? Here’s a convenient racing sequence on a rainbowed road. Want some platforming action? Here’s a random scene where Mario has to prove his capabilities seconds after meeting Princess Peach, here presented as a fearless warrior with little or no backstory. While The Lego Movie (also starring Pratt) was able to pay tribute to its properties in a refreshing way, this feels like a soulless exercise in tick-boxing.
This is directed by Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic, the brains behind the brilliant Teen Titans Go! To the Movies, but there’s little of that irreverent humour on display here. Though it has all the ingredients for a fun Mario film - the Mario Karts, fan-favourite characters, and side-view pipe action all make an appearance - the set pieces feel weirdly tame, while there’s only a handful of truly funny moments. Even Seth Rogen, virtually playing himself as Donkey Kong, fails to inject more than a laugh or two.
Thank the mushroom gods then, for Jack Black, whose big bad carries the film on the back of his signature spiky shell. Whether he’s terrifying his boney goons or penning a hilarious song dedicated to Peach (complete with cheesy music video flourishes), Black has a ball playing Bowser as a rockstar, stealing pretty much every scene he’s in. If the rest of the film had as much fun, this might’ve been a game adaptation worth pressing start for.
Powered up by an unshackled Jack Black performance, The Super Mario Bros. Movie slips on the banana skin of its weak story and lack of creative ideas.
★★
7 notes
·
View notes
"Ed Iskandar talked with God. Then it was Lucifer’s turn. Now he was addressing Adam and Eve.
[...]
Right now, Iskandar was rehearsing the plays from Act I, including Madeleine George’s 10-minute piece about the Fall of Man, which she gives the elaborate title, “A Worm Walks Into A Garden or The Fall of Man, an experiment in motive and comedy.” In it, Lucifer tells dumb jokes to Adam and Eve, as a way of seducing them. Adam finds them funny. Eve doesn’t.
“You’re missing a crucial part of your anatomy,” Lucifer says to Eve. “The funnybone.”
Lucifer is being played by Asia Kate Dillon.
[...]
Dillon was writhing and entwining themself around Eve. Suddenly Chase Brock, the show’s choreographer, got down on the floor and started to writhe on the floor along with Lucifer. Brock had researched the earthworm, and showed some pictures of earthworms to Dillon on his laptop to suggest other moves they could make."
"50 different plays by almost as many different playwrights is a massive undertaking in which each vignette varies in tone from the one before it. The actors playing the characters do not change from play to play; this forces the performers to be as comfortable and convincing with farce as they are playing tragedy. It is also fascinating to contemplate the mental and emotional gymnastics that each performer of The Bats (the resident acting company of The Flea) must have undergone to ensure that each character maintains the same internal psychological throughline when they appear in different plays by very different authors.
The first act deals with the Old Testament books and the Nativity. In playwright Dale Orlandersmith’s Song of the Trimorph, the angels in Heaven mindlessly worship God (a deliciously petty, yet shrewdly authoritative Matthew Jeffers), who takes it as His due until Lucifer (Asia Kate Dillon) starts to question whether love without choice means anything.
Dillon’s beautifully delicate, white-haired devil is one of the show’s most complex figures. Watching them evolve from nuanced philosopher to diabolical heavy to world-weary cynic, depending on the vignette, is fascinating. The narrative speeds its way through the Bible. Highlights include Madeleine George’s surprisingly feminist take on the Adam and Eve story; Hwang’s marvelously urgent Cain and Abel tale, which posits the first murder as a story of vengeance against a capricious God; and Mallery Avidon’s whimsically horrifying tale of Noah’s Flood, which also entails the deaths of everyone who didn’t make it aboard the Ark.
[...]
The show’s second section deals with the Life of Jesus, with Colin Waitt’s astonishingly variegated boy-next-door Jesus shifting from an idealistic dreamer as he travels with Mary and Joseph to a forceful, almost angry philosopher when he argues with Lucifer about the nature of love to a bratty dolt when he confronts Gabriel about his inevitable fate. The fact that the playwrights clearly have a different idea of Jesus’s personality sets Wiatt a complex task: He has to make his Christ the same in all situations; whether he’s being comic or tragic, Wiatt is convincing and moving in a performance of stunning versatility.
Indeed, his likable turns in Gabriel Jason Dean’s beautiful Christ Enters Jerusalem makes his ferocious agonies in Qui Nguyen’s Christ Before Herod and his subsequent crucifixion all the more heartrending. The third act deals with Christ’s resurrection and humanity’s fate at the Day of Judgment, and includes a series of plays set in modern times, as well as God’s final words to Lucifer, Jesus, and to us. The show’s final Day of Judgment coda by Jose Rivera is an essay of forgiveness and unexpected love."
"Overall, the point of view of The Mysteries leans toward deism, the Enlightenment philosophy that presents God as a kind of clockmaker who created the universe, then left it alone to run according to its own laws. We see God squabbling with, then abandoning, Lucifer, setting in motion the events of the Bible, but even in Eden he is surprisingly enigmatic.
[...]
And, as one of the thieves killed with Jesus prophesies, it may all be for naught; he conjures up a future in which "the religion founded -- haha --upon your existence will be held up to justify the slaughter of millions over hundreds and thousands of years, for the brutal sins of domination and exploitation, the lynchings, the massacres and genocide, the relentless militarism. Everything you stood for will be erased."
[...]
In any case, the company is an almost constant joy. Among the more striking performances, [...] Asia Kate Dillon is a compelling presence as Lucifer."
"Four dozen playwrights take four dozen spiritual positions, which allows bubbles of radical reimagining to emerge only to sink again beneath the waves. For instance, our very first playwright, Dael Orlandersmith, paints Lucifer (Asia Kate Dillon) as a sweetheart Cordelia type refusing to curry favor with an insecure God (Matthew Jeffers). The fallen Light bringer keeps popping up throughout, and yet while Lucifer makes a number of solid points—many vigorously antichurch—they're still costumed as a blood-smeared reptile. Does evil exist? Or does it only exist when it can dress super cool?"
"It begins with a scene in heaven where we meet the lavish Angel Chorus that will be with us for the duration of the play, and witness Lucifer’s expulsion from heaven, something like in Milton’s Paradise Lost.
[...]
We also meet the rebellious Lucifer in that first scene in heaven, played with dazzling cynicism by Asia Kate Dillon, and at the same time the angel Gabriel, played by Alice Allemano, who, obedient to God, in contrast to Lucifer, struggles valiantly trying to make sense out of God’s commands and following through on them. These two, Lucifer and Gabriel, played by tall, striking people, fine actors who resemble one another, hold the vast array together like bookends.
The scenes in the Garden of Eden are delightful, played, appropriately in the nude, by Jaspal Binning as Adam and Alesandra Nahodil as Eve. Throughout the play, Biblical episodes are interpreted by the many playwrights in non-canonical ways and the first of these is brilliant: the knowledge the first couple gain through their disobedient eating of the apple is — how to tell a good joke and how to enjoy one!"
"Act I – The Fall begins with Creation and Lucifer’s fall from grace with God. Lucifer is played by a steady, radiant Asia Kate Dillon who reappears frequently to mix things up with earthlings and the rival angel, Gabriel, played by Alice Allemano makes goodness alluring. God is played by an extremely patient and multi-dimensional Matthew Jeffers whose sense of humor humanizes the Lord."
"As starting points, Dael Orlandersmith’s “Song of the Trimorph (Lucifer’s Lament)” and Liz Duffy Adams’s “Falling for You” are somewhat too abstract, particularly “Falling for You,” which has Lucifer wonder, “How can there be love in the absence of being?”"
"Starting with the Fall, we are introduced to the Angel Gabriel and the fallen angel Lucifer, played by two equally lissome and brilliant young actors, Alice Allemano and Asia Kate Dillon. They compete for God’s affections by using a chorus of singing punk angels."
"Asia Dillon as Lucifer brought the precise mixture of demonic delight and fragility necessary for such an adaptation: watching their performance was like looking at a raw cut in the bowels of the earth, brimming with fire and unimaginable sadness."
(no relevant quotes, but throwing in a brief pdf of a grantee project report that focuses on Engagement)
5 notes
·
View notes
Today i watched To My Star, and i pretty much love it. It’s the second Korean BL i finished.
It started as regular kdrama and continue as one too.
There are some things that i don’t like about BL dramas, but this drama doesn’t have most of them.
I watched all seasons but i gotta say, second season was way better than the first one. Even if i didn’t watch the first one, i’d still watch the second. After all, it was great and lovely. i probably watch it again.
And this picture is so beautiful 🥹
9 notes
·
View notes
Movie Review - Top Gun: Maverick
Top Gun: Maverick is the long awaited sequel to the 1986 quintessential Americana film Top Gun. Tom Cruise reprises his role as Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, a Navy pilot who returns to the TOPGUN program as an instructor to prepare a new batch of skilled pilots for an incredibly dangerous mission. Miles Teller, Jennifer Connelly, Jon Hamm, Glen Powell, Monica Barbaro, Lewis Pullman and Val Kilmer help round out the cast.
As someone who had no nostalgic attachment to the original movie, Top Gun: Maverick did not have me jumping up and down in anticipation leading up to its release. Quite honestly, in the mess of movie delays throughout the COVID pandemic, I had forgotten that this movie hadn’t released yet until a few months prior to its theatrical debut. While I cannot join the resounding praises with which numerous Top Gun fans have been hailing the film, I can admit that I was pleasantly surprised by Top Gun: Maverick, both in its action set pieces and in its emotionality.
“Highway to the danger zone” is an apt description for the action and stunts demonstrated in this movie. While the original Top Gun clearly had their actors in staged cockpits in front of green screens, Top Gun: Maverick pulls no punches and puts the actors right in the seats of these planes. Many reaction shots are wholeheartedly genuine to the powerful G-forces created by these jets. Combining these with impressive aerial displays of these planes, gorgeous cinematography and seamless CGI integration makes each action scene, in the truest sense of the word, awesome. You almost forget that Tom Cruise is not an actual Naval pilot.
I do feel the sequel falls short in terms of its writing and originality. Comparing this movie to the original, not only do many characters fulfill the same function (i.e. Iceman & Hangman), but also numerous plot points are recycled. Hell, the entire final mission is a total reimagining of the Trench Run from Star Wars: A New Hope. To the movie’s credit, this feels entirely intentional, harkening back to the storytelling of the first movie. The payoff is the emotional resonance throughout the movie, particularly between Cruise and Teller’s characters. Maverick has a massive amount of guilt on him due to the events of the previous movie, and Teller’s character Rooster has a lot to prove to both himself and to Maverick, putting the two frequently at odds. Seeing these two have to come together is the heart of the movie, and everything serves this end. It’s impactful and meaningful, for sure, if not somewhat predictable.
If I possessed the nostalgia for the original movie, I can definitely see Top Gun: Maverick being an absolute perfect film. It surpasses much of what was achieved in 1986 with the original movie, while paying proper homage to its predecessor. For those like me, a casual enjoyer of Top Gun, the sequel still provides tons of thrills and heartfelt moments that are sure to please any crowd, but not much else. Though this trip into the danger zone is a bit safer than the classic theme promises, Top Gun: Maverick is a worthwhile watch nonetheless.
7.5/10
5 notes
·
View notes