i watched Captive State - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5968394/
i understand that this film failed hard at the box office, and i can see why, however it is not without merit.
The story is of a recent alien invasion by a semi-bening race of anthropomorphic insectoids, the "Legislators", who are all pissy because humans are unruly and shit and so they implant every human with a live bug in their neck, and make them work and force them to be happy.
There's a bunch of cospirators who do resent being happy, and decide to blow stuff up.
John Goodman stars as the villain chief of police who tries to stop the terrorists.
Now, the film is slow, and the choice (probably dictated by budget) to have unknown-to-me actors as the leads doesn't help, but the acting is reasonable, the plot is fairly complex, the realism is pretty high, the audio design is excellent, and possibly the most important aspect of the film.
However as this is basically a high tension heist film, you'd want the typical hesit film tropes, such as a charismatic lead; instead it looks like a product of british television, more adapt to a longer, serialized runtime than your 1 1/2h format of cinema. And there's precious little pewpews and kabooms you normally associate with sci-fi films.
John Goodman is surprisingly in form here, and it's just a shame that his role is peripheral to the main plot.
I dont really know if you could improve on the film, it is what it is, it sticks to its strong plot and demands attention from the viewer, but at times it becomes unexciting, maybe even a little boring.
Compare this to Children of Men, a film that had a great many issues, from the pacing, to the direction, the casting, even some plot choices were debatable, but the otherwise incredible photography and visuals coupled with awesome sound design more than make up for it, and you'd think Captive State could use some of that.
it's not you, Captive State, it's us; we're dumb and we want to be entertained. Please entertain us?
6.5/10
then i also saw Stan & Ollie - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3385524/
And did not particularly like it.
When i was a child, i used to absolutely adore these two guys. The two guys would be Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, in case that's not obvious, but then again you would have to be born in the B&W television era to know about them. But they were great stars, akin to Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin.
However, for being great stars, they were not paid that much, and that's the plot of the film.
No, i do not mean to say that there is no sensibility in the relationship between these two actors who costarred along each other for years, but rather that their problems are rather mundane.
While it's a shame that they were paid little - back then, movie producers made all the money - there is nothing particularly compelling in getting diabetes because you stuffed your face all your life, nothing exciting about getting old, or having a heart attack.
These things do not make for a good plot, and while i do understand that the difference between the jolly onscreen personas of these characters and instead their difficult personal life *IS* the the plot, a sensible filmwriter would have used that as the main thread, but otherwise filled the rest of the film with some sort of interesting visual aspect. I feel this would be appropriate given the type of films these two were known for.
And instead there's just two old and out of shape guys getting drunk in the pub and getting into an argument.
Good acting on the part of Coogan and whatshisname, but in a film made of boring scenes. If you like this, watch The Hippopotamus instead.
5.5/10
i understand that this film failed hard at the box office, and i can see why, however it is not without merit.
The story is of a recent alien invasion by a semi-bening race of anthropomorphic insectoids, the "Legislators", who are all pissy because humans are unruly and shit and so they implant every human with a live bug in their neck, and make them work and force them to be happy.
There's a bunch of cospirators who do resent being happy, and decide to blow stuff up.
John Goodman stars as the villain chief of police who tries to stop the terrorists.
Now, the film is slow, and the choice (probably dictated by budget) to have unknown-to-me actors as the leads doesn't help, but the acting is reasonable, the plot is fairly complex, the realism is pretty high, the audio design is excellent, and possibly the most important aspect of the film.
However as this is basically a high tension heist film, you'd want the typical hesit film tropes, such as a charismatic lead; instead it looks like a product of british television, more adapt to a longer, serialized runtime than your 1 1/2h format of cinema. And there's precious little pewpews and kabooms you normally associate with sci-fi films.
John Goodman is surprisingly in form here, and it's just a shame that his role is peripheral to the main plot.
I dont really know if you could improve on the film, it is what it is, it sticks to its strong plot and demands attention from the viewer, but at times it becomes unexciting, maybe even a little boring.
Compare this to Children of Men, a film that had a great many issues, from the pacing, to the direction, the casting, even some plot choices were debatable, but the otherwise incredible photography and visuals coupled with awesome sound design more than make up for it, and you'd think Captive State could use some of that.
it's not you, Captive State, it's us; we're dumb and we want to be entertained. Please entertain us?
6.5/10
then i also saw Stan & Ollie - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3385524/
And did not particularly like it.
When i was a child, i used to absolutely adore these two guys. The two guys would be Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, in case that's not obvious, but then again you would have to be born in the B&W television era to know about them. But they were great stars, akin to Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin.
However, for being great stars, they were not paid that much, and that's the plot of the film.
No, i do not mean to say that there is no sensibility in the relationship between these two actors who costarred along each other for years, but rather that their problems are rather mundane.
While it's a shame that they were paid little - back then, movie producers made all the money - there is nothing particularly compelling in getting diabetes because you stuffed your face all your life, nothing exciting about getting old, or having a heart attack.
These things do not make for a good plot, and while i do understand that the difference between the jolly onscreen personas of these characters and instead their difficult personal life *IS* the the plot, a sensible filmwriter would have used that as the main thread, but otherwise filled the rest of the film with some sort of interesting visual aspect. I feel this would be appropriate given the type of films these two were known for.
And instead there's just two old and out of shape guys getting drunk in the pub and getting into an argument.
Good acting on the part of Coogan and whatshisname, but in a film made of boring scenes. If you like this, watch The Hippopotamus instead.
5.5/10