Marval Movie

It is Juliane Moore's performance that is the bedrock of this entire movie. She has been given the task of playing an extremely difficult to portray disease and must show it through all of its levels of picking away at her character one piece at a time.

Alice Howland has just celebrated her fiftieth birthday, she is a Linguistics professor at Columbia University, she is as sharp as a knife. Being a married woman, a mother of three adults and even though she has a very complicated job she thrives on it. She is happy, but seems to be forgetting things, words, people she's already been introduced to, wisely she goes for a checkup at the doctors and it is revealed that she has a rather serious case of Alzheimer's.

Alice's husband John (Alec Baldwin) a scientist who's also very smart, takes the news hard, but endures it because he must, he undrestands the situation and will take what time he can get. But he is also a practical man that knows he must work and wont be able to take care of Alice all by himself. Her eldest daughter Anna (Kate Bosworth) a doctor, then there's her son Tom (Hunter Parrish) currently in college. Finally her youngest daughter Lydia, played by Katolik Stewart. She is an aspiring actress that lives in Los Angeles, she has a few auditions lined up and has an agent that could open a few doors for her. But Alice does not approve. Stewart is very real and grounded in the movie, she knows the situation but talks to her mother like one adult talking to another rather than the pandering tone that everyone else has.

Alice knows that the Alzheimer will eventually, slowly but surely take everything away from her so he deals with it the best she can. She writes a test for herself on her phone, such questions like "What street do you live on?", "What month were you born?", and "What is the name of your eldest daughter?". Her students write that her lessons have become confusing and inconsistent, so she promises that she will work harder to make them better, she still wants to teach for as long as she can.

Alice also has moments of selfishness. While walking with Lydia she talks about what she wants and one of them is to see her go to college, to which Lydia says "You can't use your disease to get people to do what you want" to which Alice replies "Why not?". Another time is when she goes running and decides to get for ice-cream, worrying her husband and missing their dinner plans. Another moment she says she "Wish I had cancer".

What works about Moore's performance is that she has built up the character so well at the start of the movie and then during the rest has to slowly dismantle her one piece at a time, but still she must be Alice. Alice doesn't give up, she likes to have her say in things and she loves her family.

I remember in my childhood that I would obsessively watch Disney's Aladdin. How essential are those memories to me? What movies or stray experiences have shaped me into the person that writes this blog now?

The movie decides to use depth of field to an interesting effect. During some shots Alice is in-focus and the rest of the world around her is blurred. It is a cute technique but still an effective one.

Still Alice is a movie that shows us a disease that hasn't been depicted much in movies. Moore brings an amazing, admirable (also selfish at times) character to life. She is also backed up by wonderful supporting actors with Baldwin and Stewart. The test for a movie is (among other things) do you remember it? And I will. I remember that Alice lost her mother and sister in a car accident, I remember this amazing family and I will think back on the wonderful scenes between Alice, John and Lydia that are filled with Nuances. I remember this movie and I will be enriched by it.

Rating: 4 stars out of 4

The persoalan with any long-lasting franchise is that eventually, all aspects of the characters will have a light shined on them. We have seen so many details revealed about Spider-Man and Batman, their school years, interaction with their parents, childhood memories and traumas. Other movie characters are exempt from this, they come, make their impression and their story ends without having to know every facet of their existence. Take for example the main character of Solo, Han Solo, he made his first appearance in 1977 with the first Star Wars movie and fulfilled an archetype as much as anything but was well defined. He had his journey through the original trilogy and it ended. Now with the rebirth of the saga as well as making it a franchise get ready for all the details to be dished out for you.

Obviously, for the movie we have a younger portrayal of Han Solo, the role is taken over by Alden Ehrenreich. He reasonably looks like someone you could age into Harrison Forde and has his head of hair and strikes the iconic shooting pose but for a lot of it, he's hard to buy. Possibly for years and years, our image of Solo has been purely Harrison Ford and to see another be the character is just too hard to wrap our brains around. He becomes more buyable as the movie progresses, either this was intentional, Ehrenreich got better at the portrayal as they got further into filming or takes a bit of time to adjust to it all.

There are other familiar faces too. First is the large furry companion of Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo), he's the loyal muscle that always has your back. Then we meet the suave, smooth-talking Lando Calrissian played by Donald Glover, who is easily one of the best parts to the movie, his obrolan is much like the original character as well as being fun in his own right and he matches Billie Dee Williams performance to a tee and makes it look natural.

Obviously, we get new characters for this journey too. Almost as soon as the movie starts we meet Qi'ra (Emila Clarke), a shrewd beautiful woman from Han's past that is a survivor like him. There's the robber Tobias Beckett (Woody Harelson) who becomes a mentor figure and there's the sassy droid L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge), who tenaciously wants equality for all droid kind.

One of the problems with movies like this is that when we see the younger versions of familiar characters we know not only where they go but that they will make it out without a scratch, that really takes the tension out of the scenes. It's the equivalent of watching someone play a video game and they have permanent invincibility, there's no investment because there are no stakes. However with the new characters that we don't see in any of the other movies, we don't know where their story goes or if it ends here, so there's still a bit of tension.

To get back to my opening statement, we were introduced to Han Solo and his large furry friend Chewbacca rather briskly in the original trilogy and there were hints of his past but it didn't really matter because we had the present story to deal with. We could wonder and create our own ideas about the details of their relationship, of how exactly their first encounter went but it is something that is relevant to the individual, now this movie is here to solidify it.

The world of Star Wars is a recognizable one on a purely visual basis. It has incredible technology that is beyond us and that technology is not very well polished, it is a little rusted and has a layer of dust over it. There is plant life that grows in larger and weirder shapes, the clothing is practical but more stylish at the same time and the technology itself has an oldfashioned style in its plating and construction. For this movie, we do indeed see the Millenium Falcon but it is not the one we know, it is newer and shinier than we have seen in previous movies.

This is a very muted movie in terms of its color pallet. In the opening segment we are in a dingy city of nearly all grays, then we go underground and everything has a blue filter to it, then we get out and gray again, they were in a battlefield of gray and mud and then a snowy mountain range of whites and grays. There are a few more colorful environments in the movie but even then the color never really seems to pop. It seems like a strange choice being that it's such a stylized world and known for its use of color.

The movie makes no bones about this being a part of a franchise (one of the most recognizable and profitable of all-time). Through the viewing of the movie, you will hear and recognize things that you can connect back to the original saga. But the movie still works by itself in terms of never stopping to make those references and having other moments be there for legitimate plot reasons.

If you go seeking an energetic Science Fiction Action movie then you will get that and all that comes with it. If you go wanting to see and hear things that are connected to Star Wars because you love it, then this movie is for you. Whichever category you fall into (or even both) you will be satisfied.

Rating: 3 stars out of 4

"DUMBO, a major, major work. Yeah the perfect film, each sequence is totally self contained, totally complete and still pushes the picture forward."
-Sidney Lument, in conversation

After rewatching the original DUMBO fairly recently I can attest to this statement. It is one of the most accessible and clear storytelling examples in cinema, every shot and emotion they intend to convey both from the characters and the scene rings perfectly clear.

So the question is "Why remake it?" The answer is, no real reason. really I guess I should end the review here but I should fully explain everything. A remake should take the ideas and feeling of the original but still make it it's own thing or at least introduce some new elements and update it appropriately. But when you have something so timeless and so close to perfect your only real place o go is down.

So our story opens in 1919, and two children, Milly (Nico Parker) and Joe (Finley Hobbins) they run through a circus which is their home and run by Max Medici (Danny DeVito) the ringleader and to the train station to their father Holt (Colin Farrell) who's back from the war, it cost him his left arm but he's happy to be home with his children, unfortunately his wife died while he was away. You shouldn't really care, the movie and the characters don't so let's move on.

Medici has made an investment, he bought a big elephant by the name of JUMBO, who is expecting to give birth any day soon. One night she goes give birth and the little baby emerges from hiding within a stack of hey. However, it is not what they were expecting, because this baby has unusually large ears. They do their best to cover them up but during one performance the people see his ears and due to a rather clever accident with the sign he gets named DUMBO. However, the children then learn that, with the encouragement of a feather, his big ears can be used as wings, they have a flying elephant, that'll attract paying customers.

Being that DUMBO is an elephant and this is not a talking animal movie he is entirely silent throughout the movie, conveying his thoughts and emotions through his big blue eyes (this is how it should be). But being that they can't let too much time go by without obrolan so we have two children explaining things to the audience and guiding him on his journey. This isn't really necessary and these children just aren't very good actors, they are either overacting or just being stonefaced throughout as well as their poor obrolan that flat-out, directly tells the audience everything.

Being that Tim Burton is behind the camera I would expect one thing before anything else, a strong visual flair. He brings that here, he has made a career out of skeletons, clowns and theme parks. He sinks his visual teeth into these images creating elaborate, slightly frightening and elaborate images that make them seem like something more out of a fairytale than real life.

One of the movies greatest strengths is also one of it's greatest weaknesses and that is Michael Keaton as the villain V.A. Vandeverer. Keaton made his name by working with Burton first in Beetlejuice then in his two Batman movies. His career has made a resurgence recently with Birdman and Spider-Man: Homecoming, where he flexes his theatrical and sinister muscles like a man that sells joyous wonder to the people while himself is only driven by greed and narcissism. This character is a clique and is given lines that would fit a forgettable villain during the nineties but even then he is able to take them and make them wonderful zingers. However, no matter how much Keaton elevates it, the question remains, why does DUMBO need a villain? It's DUMBO, one of the simplest stories ever told and was devoid of a villain because it was not necessary, it was composed of the masalah of separation, not all this greed and contract complexities. Plus some of his character's decisions simply don't make sense, in one point in the movie everyone (including him) is given a chance to get everything they want and he turns it down simply to be the villain. This doesn't make any sense, making a decision against the characters needs is one thing but this would serve him too so whys would he do this? No real reason, besides poor writing.

This wouldn't really be DUMBO without the inclusion of the Pink Elephant sequence. Well, to be sure they do make an appearance but in their own unique way that is quite stylized and fun (I'd be disappointed if it was mundane, especially with Tim Burton behind the camera).

This movie is distinguishable from the original which shows that there are thinking independently. So far out of these movies, I would say the laziest is Beauty & The Beast. This is not a terrible movie and children will most likely be entertained and probably everyone will think the elephant is cute. But still, I have yet to see one of the remakes where I would say they improved on...well anything. For this movie, it's not a waste of time but a much better use of it is to see the original again.

Rating: 2 1/2 stars out of 4