jfsinil Reviews

Be Natural: The Untold Story of Alice Guy-Blaché (2018)

Just saw this...

[9/10 · 14 October 2019]

I HAD heard of Guy-Blache, but then I have been a silent film geek for almost 50 years now. Have been catching what I can on-line of her work - so far, 1916 The Ocean Waif is the best, Doris Kenyon was a far more natural actress then Pickford or the Gish sisters based on that film.

I think that Simon could have skipped including so many phone interviews with distance relatives of Guy-Blache, (many of which could have used subtitles, I found them hard to understand) and included some longer clips of her actual films instead. It is obvious that a lot of work went into digging up information on Guy-Blache, and I appreciate it, but would rather have seen more of her work than her family life. Still, I gave it 9 out of 10 stars since the subject matter is so important to film history...and I LOVE the opening postcard collages that take the viewer back in time and across the ocean!

Ghostbusters: Answer the Call (2016)

Didn't need to be made, just so-so

[4/10 · 19 July 2016]

Not sure if this spoils anything, so be warned just in case.....

Well, I took my adult son with autism to see this. Usually Joe belly laughs at the slightest physical humor - not a peep out of him this time. I did appreciate some of the humor, in particular that of Wiig and McCarthy. McKinnon, I get it that her character was supposed to be an abrasive brilliant geek - she was just a bit too abrasive and came off as annoying more often than not. Jones was actually funnier than the other three leads - maybe she was given better material? Anyway, what made the movie for this older mom was seeing Hemsworth ham it up as the doofus beefcake. He seemed to be having a lot of fun with that role (nice break from being Thor, eh?) Some of the ghosts effects were cool. My son was actually afraid at some points, as most of the ghosts were honestly scary rather than funny-scary.

I am glad we went on $5 Tuesday as I'd have been ticked off if I had paid more to see this. I do know my son will want the DVD eventually, so they will make some more money off us. But not running out to buy him a t-shirt or action figure.

Edited to add something that is still bugging me - (SPOILER!!!) towards the end of the film, as the Bad Guy turns into a ghost and starts to grow larger - the heroes just stand there and watch him. After blasting ghosts right and left they seem to forget what they are capable of and don't shoot!!!! They run. Sure, there is one blast done that burns the now huge ghost villain's shoulder - but do the Ghostbusters continue to blast him and take him down? No - they run some more and meanwhile he is chasing them and bashing into buildings, too, before they finally use their blasters to take him down. Now, I get it. Blasting the villain at the get-go would have been logical, but then we wouldn't have the Big Final Showdown. But sure makes the 'Busters look stupid.

Fantastic Four (2015)

Star Wars preview best part of seeing this today...

[2/10 · 7 August 2015]

Film starts out with young Reed and future Thing bonding over circuit-blowing experiments in a garage. Flash forward to a high school science fair, and lo, if that isn't Jamie Bell as Ben Grimm. I like Bell, and despite the the slow beginning of this film begin to wake up and pay attention more.

Of course, after the creation of the Four, guess which actor totally disappears into being the human boulder - Bell. The only actor in the movie to show a spark of ability. I can't even remember what the other actors looked like, and they got to still look like themselves when not bursting into flames or going invisible.

The film moves slooowly. A lot of the scenes are just dark - I mean, is lack of lighting to hide cheap sets or what? The special effects are passable - except for Reed as Mr. Stretchy. Mrs. Incredible did it better and she was obviously a cartoon. Reed just looked a poorly drawn-out special effect trying and failing to look real.

Save your money on this one - or go see Antman again. That film was FUN!

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Not LOTR.....

[6/10 · 14 December 2013]

While this is a fairly enjoyable film, and well-worth seeing, the second Hobbit film is marred by over-reliance on CGI that either looks fake (molten gold anyone?) or, applied to the characters, unrealistic. It is jarring to be distracted from the narrative when during a fight scene one is presented with the impossible contortions of the Nimble Ninja Elves as they take out what should be over-whelming gangs of powerful enemies. There was some of this back in the battle scenes in the LOTR films - but there now is an over-reliance on CGI to the point of distraction in this film (seen in 2D).

Back to that CGI gold - Thorin in one scene travels quite a distance precariously balanced on a metal shield that neither heats up or melts as it floats on a trough of molten gold. Really? All that raging fire and molten metal in the climatic scenes and not one dwarf or Bilbo looks even flushed from the heat? And - what would make Thorin think molten gold would harm a dragon that generates fire from within? C'mon! That said - Smaug himself was a successful CGI creation, and looked (and sounded) very real. Which reminds me of the LUDICROUS shot of Thorin balancing on the dragon's snout....just because you can do ANYTHING with CGI doesn't mean you should! Such an unbelievable predicament just jerks the viewer OUT of the story/film! (Like the ludicrous stampede in King Kong where none of the principals gets stepped on - does no one tell Jackson "No, boss, bad idea" anymore?)

What I did like about this film, apart from Smaug, were the introduction and use of Tauriel, and showing Bilbo's growing "attachment" to the Ring. Martin Freeman's Bilbo is one of the best parts of this film. However - so far neither of the Hobbit films is of the stellar caliber Jackson achieved with the LOTR trilogy. Sigh. I fear the third film will simply be more CGI battles at the expense of real storytelling.