 I'll start this one off with the fact that history is far from my strong suit, and I know pretty much nothing about Napoleon Bonaparte and can, therefore, not point out any sort of accuracy or inaccuracy about the execution of this movie. What I can tell you, however, is that I have heard other reviewers mention how what's essentially covered here is "Napoleon's Greatest Hits," as far as battles go. It's not in a great or terrible spot on Rotten Tomatoes, with a current average of 58.5%, and in a word, the film could be described as "okay" at best.
Admittedly, I ended up seeing this for two major reasons: Ridley Scott and his fantastic job on previous films like 'Gladiator,' and Joaquin Phoenix, who I thought might have been able to pull Napoleon off, but after watching, I can't help but feel like he didn't quite nail it. But again, I'm no good with history, especially regarding things like this. I'm not sure we learned anything about the man in school. If we ever did, it didn't stand out, and my biggest impression of who Napoleon was is best portrayed in Looney Tunes. So, I am not the right guy to review this for accuracy. But even with that, I still have my own takeaways. The film opens with an almost glorified execution of Marie Antoinette (Catherine Walker) as Napoleon Bonaparte (Phoenix) watches the guillotine do its thing from the sidelines. I suppose this scene was mostly to tie another big name of the era into things to kick it off because things pick up later that year when Napoleon is approached by Paul Barras (Tahar Rahim), a Revolutionary leader who asks Napoleon to manage the Siege of Toulon. And this is when the viewer quickly realizes that animal lovers need not attend this movie - especially regarding horses because things get graphic! And while things get very gory here, and I hate seeing animals get it (even if they weren't harmed), I still have to give Scott credit for not holding back on some of the bloodier realism of these battle scenes. They keep you on the edge of your seat, you feel their brutality, and they serve as not-so-friendly reminders that war is an ugly thing. But with that said, that's the only real reason to check this movie out, in my opinion. It almost feels like a new setting of the bar for war violence to me, making the opening of 'Saving Private Ryan' look tame. The other side of the story concerns his "romantic" life with aristocratic widow Joséphine de Beauharnais (Vanessa Kirby). This is mostly centred on their sex life and, despite it being quite vigorous, the inability to bear children and, therefore, give Napoleon an heir. Of course, it also covers Napoleon's abusive tendencies and temper here, which can get uncomfortable. But it can get funny when taking his temper to his military tactics. At one point, he even acts like a kid, telling a British diplomat, "You think you're so great because you've got boats!" But while there are a couple of solid laughs through this, intentional or not, and the bloody war action is top-notch (if that's what you're here for, but keep in mind the horses), I'm not entirely sure I got what I wanted from it, especially from Phoenix's acting. The man is great, don't get me wrong, but I think this role was one of his weaker performances, and I'm not alone on this based on word of mouth and various other articles on the subject. I had to browse because I wondered if it was just me. Ultimately, he just felt miscast. I was ultimately looking forward to this potentially reaching the top of my list of movies this year based on certain things, mostly on seeing Ridley Scott return to this type of historical stuff. And while I thought many aspects of the film were good, some others just dragged, and it ends with what might as well be a random fade to black. So don't be on the lookout for an epic, unforgettable end to this. At the end of the day, my opinion on this as a whole is pretty much where everyone else is. It's good some of the time, lame some of the time, and averages out to be "decent," but it's nothing compared to Scott's earlier work on 'Gladiator.' 3/5
0 Comments
 I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I predict the Video Game genre to be the next big thing after the Superhero genre starts to fizzle out. And here, again, we have further evidence of such a concept. This time, the filmmakers decided to look at an intriguing story surrounding video games instead of just trying to adapt a game to the big screen. In this case, the story surrounds (arguably) the most popular racing simulator of all time - 'Gran Turismo'. All in all, a game I tried once, sucked at, and never really picked up again.
Having admitted to that, the game aside, this is an intriguing true story altogether, and I'm curious to know how it went over my head. But, as usual, it's still important to note that when a film says "Based on a True Story", that usually means the movie has some loose odds and ends for dramatic effect, and it's a term to be taken very lightly. 'Gran Turismo' is no exception to this rule, though, and I'd encourage people to look at the real true stories behind Jann Mardenborough and the GT Academy, which are perhaps less dramatic, but are still interesting! Anyway, that's what this movie is all about, starting right from the beginning with the game's development, created by Kazunori Yamauchi (Takehiro Hira), who wanted to make a racing game that could efficiently mimic real racing. We take this concept and fast-forward to (presumably) 2006, where marketing executive Darren Cox (or here, Danny Moore - Orlando Bloom) pitches a contest for the best 'Gran Turismo' racers in the world to compete for a chance to race on a real race track. Training them all in the ways of real racing is one Jack Salter (David Harbour) who, I believe, is pretty much the only fictional character here. Meanwhile, we are introduced to 'Gran Turismo' mega fan Jann Mardenborough (Archie Madekwe) and his family, father, Steve (Djimon Hounsou), mother, Leslie (Geri Horner, formerly known as Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls) and brother, Coby (Daniel Puig). Jann lives his life playing 'GT' while his parents, namely his father, wish for him to think about college or university and establish some sort of life path - which 'GT' will not help with. That is, of course, until he notices that he qualifies for the aforementioned contest with his excellent racing skills and high score. The rest of the movie follows the "Cinderella Story" formula of an underdog of sorts, proving himself on the track and climbing through the ranks to become one of the greats. Of course, it doesn't come without a detail or two that causes us to question the "true story" portion of it all. But I had a lot of fun with this movie! If you can go in with the understanding that some dramatic effect is added to the plot, it's really a good time, and I have to admit that I was impressed and happy to see that the video game genre is continuing to improve, slowly but surely. Opinions will certainly differ, but I'm sticking to my guns. One might wonder where the actual video game aspect comes into things, if at all. Well, I'm happy to say it's there and used just enough to remind us of the game - excuse me - racing simulator this is all about. And I'm further happy to say that the CG used in this movie is exactly where it needs to be - used for sponsorship tags, recreating famous tracks, and, coolest of all, often making things look like the game only by tagging the racer's rank in the race or showing us some kind of "achievement." The racing and the cars being used further bring the realism that 'Gran Turismo' was all about to the big screen. Although I must admit that the story comes with predictability and some dramatic effect added to the true story, I don't have a hard time forgiving that. This is something that managed to bridge the gap between being a video game movie and being a dramatic racing story that just so happens to involve 'Gran Turismo'. Director Neil Blomkamp does a great job with this (along with everyone involved, including the real Jann Mardenborough doing his own stunt driving) and I feel like this movie should be the beginning of a whole new concept involving things like the video game contest... perhaps 'Swordquest'? 5/5  I will start this review by stating that I am more or less clueless about the history involving J. Robert Oppenheimer and everything surrounding the Manhattan Project. I went into this with the mindset that I may learn a thing or two, but I have to admit that these things get hard when the film unfolding gets pretty confusing. Perhaps not so much to history buffs who know about this stuff, but for clueless, little old me, I came out of this movie knowing what I already knew, and it certainly wouldn't be among my favourite films from Christopher Nolan.
Having said that, I would probably take this review with a grain of salt, as it seems to be one of the higher-reviewed movies of the year from other sources. I won't rip the movie apart for being "bad". But the simple fact is that this went a little beyond my overall understanding, and the way the film time jumps back and forth with timelines can make it pretty confusing. In some ways, however, this is to be expected with a Nolan film. He does not dumb things down for his audience; if you don't get it, you just don't. But I'll see what I can pull off here, despite several brain farts throughout the film. Beginning things in 1926, J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) studies at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, where he eventually met Niels Bohr (Kenneth Branagh), who recommended that he studied theoretical physics in Germany. After completing his PhD, (and meeting Werner Heisenberg [Matthias Schweighöfer]) Oppenheimer heads back to America to spread the knowledge of quantum physics there. He starts teaching with only one student, meets his future wife Kitty Puening, ex-Communist (Emily Blunt), and shows us his womanizing skills by also having an affair with one Jean Tatlock, Communist (Florence Pugh). Fast-forward to 1942, after much more set-up, Army General Leslie Groves (Matt Damon) recruits Oppenheimer to lead the Manhattan Project and develop an Atomic Bomb. With his Jewish background, Oppenheimer is especially fuelled to beat the Nazis in this race, knowing what destruction it would entail if the Nazis managed it first. Oppenheimer's dream team of scientists includes the likes of Edward Teller (Benny Safdie), Isidor Isaac Rabi (David Krumholtz), Enrico Fermi (Danny Deferrari) and David L. Hill (Rami Malek). From there, we know how things go, as history has informed even the simplest of us (mainly speaking for myself). The other end of this story is where I get completely lost because it has everything to do with politics and Communism, and I just plain suck at understanding these things entirely. As far as I can tell, it has to do with the eventual Cold War, where Oppenheimer's desire to cease research on nuclear bombs conflicts with the views of Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.). Many politics enter into it all, especially concerning Oppenheimer's past associations with Communism (hence mentioning it alongside his two love interests earlier). Politics tend to be, however, where movies lose me. I suppose it's easy to say that many others will watch this and get much more than I did out of it. But again, that's not to say this was bad. There was plenty for me to admire here regarding overall performances, the time-transporting set design, and the painting of Oppenheimer as a fallible human being. I'm sure it's easy for many to see him as "the guy who invented the nuke" and instantly put him in the villain category. So to the film's credit, this was a movie about the man and not so much what he accomplished along with the aftermath it caused. When all is said and done, this will end up being one of those titles everyone else will love, but I'll just say it was "okay". As mentioned earlier, it's far from my favourite Nolan film. I'm also not the kind of guy who believes Nolan can do no wrong, as I know some might. I find him to be sort of hit-or-miss, and the misses are primarily because I'm watching the film with a big question mark above my head. Sadly, this was one of those, although it WAS easier to follow than 'Tenet'. This undoubtedly has its audience, and I can't say anything truly negative against it because my only real dislike about it was me not absorbing it, which is very much a "me" problem. So again, take this review with a massive grain of salt. 3/5 |
RSS Feed