A sudden splice of memory strikes my head. It is not
A breathing, fully-fledged flashback, nor is it
A dusty drip in the desert. It is just
A glassy, red-blue-green, translucent panel, swiping with
All the other fragile sheets of memory.
The memory,
Throbbing in pain,
Thriving with ambition to get out of long-term, is
Thronging and consuming the mind at every corner. It
Meticulously manifests,
Morphing into a magnetic, malign
Maelstrom, bringing and inducing
Mayhem, transforming the
Mind into a
Madhouse, and convinces its owner to take a stride disguised as a "leap of faith" into the void of darkness where there is no happiness and only more loneliness. The memory, contagious and carcinogenic, freezes the mind takes over it conquers it and, destroys, it, by, shredding, it, into, a, million, pieces; until
Something, thankfully,
Stanches the blood. It might be a
Stream of consciousness, a
Spring awakening, or a
So-called "savior".
Defeated, the parasite once again returns to its residence.
Business as usual, life goes back to "normal". Seasons come and go,
It feels obligatory to sing the praises of Marvel Studios every time a new entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) comes out. To no one's surprise, Doctor Strange has impressed critics with a 91% approval ratio on Rotten Tomatoes, and is set to score a domestic opening weekend of at least USD$70 million. Ever since the release of Iron Man in 2007, Marvel's success has been unstoppable – scoring critical and box office hit after hit. Doctor Strange marks the biggest risk Marvel has ever taken and it seems that the risk has paid off as well.
The teal-and-orange madness of Doctor Strange's theatrical poster.
Doctor Strange comes directly after the wildly enjoyable Captain America: Civil War. While the success of a film like Captain America: Civil War might be attributed largely to the well-developed and cohesive "cinematic universe", Doctor Strange, being an origin story, rides less on the coattails of the MCU. Different from the origin story of Ant-Man, Doctor Strange makes almost no mention of the rest of The Avengers until – you guessed it – the mid-credits scene. In the past, Marvel has stepped into the intergalactic in Guardians of the Galaxy, so this is nothing new for Doctor Strange; Doctor Strange marks the first time the MCU steps into the mystical. These two key features make Doctor Strange starkly different from the rest of the universe. One more thing that sets it apart is probably the prestige behind this project – with a stellar cast of Oscar nominees such as Benedict Cumberbatch, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Tilda Swinton, and Rachel McAdams, Doctor Strange tackles themes and concepts that channel Inception and even 2001: A Space Odyssey vibes. Clearly, Doctor Strange is Marvel's attempt to create a distinctive entity that looks and feels more 'serious' and 'deep' than your average comic-book adaptation.
Doctor Strange features Inception-esque visuals.
Story-wise and concept-wise, the film mostly succeeds. The film does indeed go full-on mystical. We are reminded again and again of realms that exist beyond our senses and universes that normal people have no knowledge of. While Inception tries to ground its ideas in realistic science-fiction, the Ancient One (yes, that's her name) from Doctor Strange responds to the eponymous character's qualms about things not making sense with "well, not everything does". Marvel has always been daring in its attempt to expand its universe – it has never been afraid to play with other planets in Thor and Guardians of the Galaxy and I applaud their boldness. However, with aggressive expansion comes excessive exposition. A film that dabbles in the otherworldly needs to explain its rules clearly, and Doctor Strange merely does a passable job at that. The rules of the universe gradually unravel and are not clearly established at first, but the action and spectacle cover the holes in logic (or lack thereof) adequately. At its core, Doctor Strange is a hero's journey, and the film does not fall into the trap of spending too much time in exposition and digressing from the story.
However, despite it being a well-made and well-told hero's journey, it is almost nothing more than that. Anyone can notice that it contains some interesting ideas about time, but it also obviously feels limited by the boundaries of the MCU. In fact, it feels difficult to summarize the film's ideas about time, because they are all over the place yet never in-depth. There is a particularly poignant scene about love and time in the middle of the film that immediately qualifies the film as leagues above, say, the uninteresting Guardians of the Galaxy, but the film stops at that. While there are many story references and (unintentional?) visual cues to Batman Begins, the film never rises (no pun intended) to Begins' levels. It is nothing but a shame, as I understand the Marvel's desire to play it safe, but this film really could have been something far greater than what it is now and its potential feels squandered by the studio's fingerprints.
The film tries to position itself as deep and thought-provoking, but its true key to success is its cast. As aforementioned, the cast almost only consists of big names, and the big names deliver. Benedict Cumberbatch is more charismatic and charming than ever and, in my opinion, does a better job here than his Oscar-nominated performance in The Imitation Game. He is the leading man from start to finish and carries the film on his shoulders while making it look like a piece of cake. He breathes life into the film when the screenplay doesn't have much to begin with. Chiwetel Ejiofor is a little modest and a little boring, but I understand why he plays it that way after watching the end-credits sequence. I'm now very excited for his appearance in the sequel. Tilda Swinton is marvelous (no pun intended) and makes the Ancient One a very convincing character, despite the character's mild inconsistencies (Is she strict or not? Why does she punish Doctor Strange but is at times relaxing? What is the logic behind that?). She seemed to enjoy her action sequences a lot which is very delightful to watch. Rachel McAdams is serviceable but she does not have much to work with. She is the typical love interest and I didn't really expect Marvel to do anything interesting with its love interest. It's a flaw that even Nolan couldn't avoid committing.
Benedict Cumberbatch is fantastic as the titular hero.
There really isn't much else to praise, because a Marvel film is expected to be successful in its storytelling. The three-act structure is there and strictly followed, and the audiences are entertained. However, as much as it contains Marvel's pros, it also carries Marvel's cons. The biggest complaint of the MCU is perhaps its flat villains. The villain of Doctor Strange is portrayed by esteemed actor Mads Mikkelsen, but the film is infected with the superhero movie syndrome of covering your actor's face with unnecessary and superfluous make-up or simply not giving the villain time to shine. (See The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Guardians of the Galaxy, the first Spider-Man, X-Men: Apocalypse... the list goes on and on.) Mikkelsen is severely underused here. The filmmakers clearly understand his abilities and gives him one confrontation in the middle that tries to beef up his character, but it falls flat because the character is not well-established in the first place. Confrontations work with The Joker because the character is well-established in the first act. Scott Derrickson, the director, admits that he tried to make a Joker-level villain but, in retrospect, his words sound laughable. He probably knows what makes a great villain great (e.g. parallels with the protagonist) but he never makes Mikkelsen's character profound or even compelling. Once again, potential to elevate Doctor Strange from the average is squandered.
Mads Mikkelsen, smothered in make-up, in a green-screen Hong Kong.
Another feature that makes MCU films less great than they can be is the humor. MCU films are riddled with humor, possibly in an attempt to balance the drama. Almost everything in the MCU is about balancing things out, playing it safe, and taking care of the needs of everyone. I enjoyed the humor much more than the tasteless humor of Guardians of the Galaxy, but Marvel's addiction to adding humor feels more like a detriment than an icing on the cake. It does produce some laughs (look for a particularly funny Beyoncé joke), but I do think the time could've been spent better on developing the ideas of the story. The same goes for the music – another typical feature of MCU movies, which so far have all contained unmemorable and inconsistent scores. This was explored by video essayist Every Frame a Painting, and kills the MCU's cultural impact. A large part of Star Wars and Harry Potter's success is their leitmotifs, and MCU still lacks one, despite recent attempts to correct this. Even though the good-and-sometimes-great Michael Giacchino was recruited for writing the score, it still doesn't save the film from unmemorable and mostly absent music. I appreciate his attempts at making the music literally strange to fit the film, but I never took notice of it until the credits. It is probably a fault of the editor more than the composer; if recruiting Giacchino and Danny Elfman (for Age of Ultron) still can't solve the MCU's music problems, then it probably lies not in the soundstage but in the editing booth.
Finally, I must address the biggest controversy surrounding the film – the alleged whitewashing of Tilda Swinton's character. Whitewashing has always been a huge problem in Hollywood – while we've moved away from the days of Orson Welles wearing black paint to play Othello, we are still stuck in a time when Christian Bale plays Moses and Scarlett Johansson plays an Asian. Hollywood is obviously uncomfortable with hiring Caucasian actors to play black characters, but seems to be fine with whitewashing Asians or characters of non-black ethnicities. The Ancient One, in the comics of Doctor Strange, is clearly and undoubtedly an Asian. An Asian man, in fact. To hire a Caucasian female for this role is clearly a huge middle finger to the preconceptions of the character. Some comic book fanatics find it frustrating that the film deviates from the source material so fundamentally and their frustrations are perfectly valid. However, challenging the preconceptions of source material is nothing new for film adaptations, and is acceptable if done with reason. It is explained pretty well in the film – "The Ancient One" is a mantle that is passed along instead of a reference to a specific, particular person, and I'm convinced that this wasn't written in just to explain the casting decision. However, even though it is perfectly explainable within the film's logic, it does not make the decision reasonable. I consider the gender-reversal a bold move as Hollywood needs to represent females not only in a sexually enticing way but also in a strong and a traditionally, stereotypically masculine way. With this in mind, there really isn't a point in changing the race of the character as it is not explainable in the way the gender-reversal decision is (Caucasians are not underrepresented). It is not as blatant and shameless as casting a Caucasian and painting him bronze to play a(n arguably historical) Israelite, but it is not far above that. The filmmakers have failed to provide the audiences with a satisfying reason behind this decision other than "the role was written for Tilda Swinton". They can't just racistly want whoever they do and write in a not-so-clever loophole to explain things. There are so many Asian actresses who can handle the role well – Zhang Ziyi, Shu Qi, Michelle Yeoh, just to name a few. The end-product works out fine, Tilda Swinton handles the role superbly, and it is slightly better than the whitewashing in Exodus: Gods and Kings, but we must not ignore the fact that this is still whitewashing. Coming from the world's top studio, it is all the more a shame.
The Ancient One from the comics vs. Tilda Swinton's turn as the character.
Doctor Strange is good, very good, but not great at all. Its marketing may lead you to think that it is intellectual or original, and in some ways, it is, but just very limitedly. It has everything you'd expect from a Marvel film – a solid cast, satisfactory directing and cinematography, clean and polished storytelling – but it also has the flaws that come along with one – tacked-on humor, forgettable music, and a lacking villain. Its slight artistic merits are ironically cancelled out by its whitewashing, and isn't as fun as Captain America: Civil War or as epic as The Avengers, but is at least better than the banal Ant-Man and the tacky Guardians of the Galaxy (sorry, I just really dislike these two). It is a solid 3.5 out of 5, maybe a 4 out of 5, but definitely nothing more than that.
Red
is the passion, age-old and widespread
and the remembrance of the bloodshed
Orange
poses an immense challenge
prompting us to scavenge
Yellow
They attack us with machismo
We go high when they go low
Green
A future that is unforeseen
The beauty of the epicene
Blue
is the melancholic rendezvous
before the triumphant breakthrough
Purple
is the union of the people
as we march through every hurdle
Color
We must acknowledge our failure
and learn from every error
We must hold back our anger
and persuade every disbeliever
We must envision the future
and strive for the spectacular
We must embody the warrior
and push the world for the better
音樂上，《問世》還是很麥浚龍，是之前的麥浚龍的加強版。製作單位上看見了一列熟悉的名字，如馮穎琪、王雙駿、Bert、Vincent Chow、Jerald 等（嘩，真的隨口嗡都一堆）。換來的是每一首歌曲都有十分高水準的編曲與製作，特別是每首歌的前奏。雖然我覺得麥浚龍的音樂是為黑暗而黑暗，但他黑暗得盡情、黑暗得成功。今次加入了與陳珊妮一樣來自台灣的許哲珮，《髪落無聲》由她作、編，有驚，但不算喜。有些與故事能做到吻合的效果，例如《呻吟》帶出了極樂、《如髪》帶出了張力等。《清靜》不算清靜，但真的很怡人，伍樂城（對，沒有看錯，原來伍樂城除了庸俗 K 歌之外還有這一面）的《你前來．我過去》也是很怡人，且配合著林夕一洗高深的歌詞（「你令我發覺我可愛」比《你的名字我的姓氏》還肉麻）。但眾多佳作之中最突出的莫過於《孽》，變化多端不在話下，刺耳的二胡能彌補沒甚記憶點的旋律的不足，而最後昇華的和聲簡直神來之筆，每次聽都感覺到神經血脈的一股衝勁、一次喚醒，效果仿似《彳亍》那句「風和風之間隔了風波/無數風波」，以及《無念》最後那段的弦樂（毫無懸念地與《孽》一樣都是蔡德才所編），真是畫龍點睛。
麥浚龍、林夕、周耀輝這個組合，好像已走到盡頭了。《天生地夢》是他們的Batman Begins，《無念》是他們的The Dark Knight，《柔弱的角》是他們的 Inception，《問世》則是他們的The Dark Knight Rises。增添了長度、擴闊了視野，卻犧牲了簡潔。今次幾方面水準依舊，但突破則未能做到。有趣的是，做 EP的麥浚龍似乎比做大碟的麥浚龍更為出色。可能是他駕馭不到十一首歌的長度吧，《問世》刪除了幾首歌曲會是一張十分簡潔而有力的EP。香港人只鍾情三部曲，連《雷克雅未克》也唾棄，絕對沒有資格也不配有比《無念》更高水準的麥浚龍。（不要忘記他幾乎每年都有新專輯。）我承認我稍微害怕會把《問世》聽厭，所以我寧願回去發掘他的舊作，但我相信麥浚龍本人是追求藝術上的突破的，所以我依舊感激他對樂迷的付出，以及期待他明年發表的新作。
1. Lawmaker Landlord Lawnmower Well everything is a little fucked up, a little spiraling out of control... The slightly unorthodox clashes and stylistic choices The cozy and the cold The snow and the sun The ballerina and the birdcage Introduce a little anarchy, upset the established order, un- I wanna get drunk, I wanna get high I don't even remember what love was all about Slowly, slowly, we creep on the cusp of death We delve into dangerous territory We play Russian Roulette with the devil and one fine morning... "I'll never love again, oh boy you've left me speechless You've left me speechless, so speechless" Mission accomplished, achievement unlocked - I no longer believe in love, in life, not anymore, not anymore! 2. Eggs Benedict Eggs benedict should be banned, along with anything else that comes in a pair.
3. (untitled) I no longer feel happiness, I no longer fear melancholy I no longer feel pleasure, I no longer fear agony I no longer feel jubilance, I no longer fear jealousy I no longer feel satisfaction, I no longer fear loneliness All I feel is senselessness is numbness Like getting injected with anesthesia is absence is nothingness No, love can't do nothing to me no more, it can't wound me, nor can it please me, it's finally left and gone for gooOoOooooOoOOd All there's left is dust, and sweet old lust
主辦：教育工作關注組 主持︰陶亨（香港中文大學通識教育學士、教育工作關注組成員）、曾瑞明（香港大學哲學博士，通識老師、教育工作關注組成員） 嘉賓介紹︰戴遠雄(香港中文大學哲學系碩士，Université de Toulouse-Jean Jaurès碩士，KU Leuven和Université de Paris-Diderot博士生。曾於本港大學任教人文學科、通識和哲學課程。）
SEP16英國脫歐造成政治地震：左翼的分析 （晚上7時30分至9時）
主辦：社會主義行動 講者：Vincent Kolo（英國工黨前全國領導層成員） Speaker: Vincent Kolo, former member of British Labour Party's national leadership.
Acting along the mainstream, I ranked Mad Max: Fury Road as my #1 pick last year. However, I'm here to bring up what I regard as one of the most underrated action flicks of last year – Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation.
Rogue Nation was indeed very well-received with a 93% at Rotten Tomatoes. However, with its thunder stolen by (the admittedly superior) Fury Road, it was quickly forgotten by the end of the year, appearing on almost nobody's year-end list and scoring few to none nominations at the awards circuit. In my opinion, if there's ever going to be a Mission: Impossible film getting near awards nominations, it's this one. Its predecessors in the franchise are all solid entries, with the excellent Brad Bird-directed Ghost Protocol, but Rogue Nation still easily outclasses all of them. It's all the more amazing that its release was pushed up front for half a year (likely helped by its reliance on practical stunt work instead of CGI).
The writing of the film is thrillingly terrible. Terrible, because the formula is very by-the-books; thrilling, because there's always a slight element of surprise in the execution. The plot is indeed nothing special – the IMF (not the International Monetary Fund) has been disbanded! There's an unlikable new director! The bad guys are from a shadowy organization which turns out to be unrealistically super powerful! It sounds like a boringly clichéd plot and is eerily similar to the James Bond entry, Spectre, from the same year (more on that later).
However, what matters is the execution. I was very worried when Christopher McQuarrie, famous for writing The Usual Suspects, was announced as the director. His directorial skills were at doubt. However, he gave us an array of scenes that were flawlessly directed. The plane. The vinyl store. Breaking into Ethan Hunt's apartment. The Opera House. The boat. The water dive. The car chase. The motorcycle chase. Liverpool Street Station. And the finale. These scenes aren't necessarily action scenes in the style of Transformers. However, they are still vividly remembered in my head for their slick execution and stunningly cinematic quality with a great sense of vision coming from McQuarrie.
Everyone's favorite – the Opera scene!
Mission: Impossible films have always been about the action set-pieces. Audiences dearly remember the memorable wire sequence from Brian De Palma's first entry, and of course the jaw-dropping Burj Khalifa sequence from Ghost Protocol. Just when everyone had been scratching their heads on how Tom Cruise (and everyone else behind the franchise) would improve on that, they gave us not one – but two – set-pieces that were not only fantastically spectacular, but also meticulously placed in the grand scheme of things. After those two set-pieces (which were deservedly hyped through relentless marketing), I kept on thinking – how on earth are they gonna top that for the third act/finale? In true spy fashion, the film gave us a classic espionage scene along with shadowy figures running through the dark streets of London in a manner reminiscent of The Third Man and other film noir classics. Instead of topping it with more spectacle, they returned to the basics, and gave us classic and rewarding entertainment. Brilliant.
I can't find a clip of the brilliant finale on YouTube, so a still will suffice.
The still doesn't do it justice though.
The formula for Rogue Nation – and for all other brilliant action films like the aforementioned Fury Road – is to constantly keep your audiences at the edge of the seat. Give your characters sufficient motivation and move things quickly enough so that audiences will forget about the simplicity (or, in some cases, downright stupidity) of your plot.
Now, I'm going to talk about Spectre, a film that completely failed that formula.
Skyfall, Spectre's critically acclaimed predecessor, uses that formula as well. In Skyfall, Silva's plot is also stupid and filled with plot holes. However, the film moves so snappily that audiences don't think about the plot holes. Combine that with set-pieces or scenes that are cinematic like Rogue Nation's (mostly due to Roger Deakins's fantastic cinematography), you have a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes. Spectre, in contrast, moves crazily slowly, and has no memorable set-pieces whatsoever. The problem of moving so slowly is that audiences have time to realize how stupid the plot is and how out of motivation the characters are. In contrast, the characters of Rogue Nation have clear motivations and always stick to them. The character arc of Ilsa Faust, the badass femme fatale whose motivations are unclear at first, comes to a complete circle at the end. In Spectre, the opening scene is labelled by many as the only redeeming part of the film, but all I see is pointless James-Bond-getting-into-bed-with-a-woman (this happens again AND again, in the age of political correctness!), and wrestling on a helicopter. Nothing particularly impressive. The car chase offers nothing except cars looking cool, the train fight has people questioning why Bond isn't dead yet, and the finale is simply nothing like Rogue Nation's (also set in London). The action is as un-cinematic as it gets – the glass box trick is a million times smarter and slicker than whatever Bond did to defeat the villain. The villain is built up to be oh-so-powerful but we are always TOLD not SHOWN of the mayhem he creates. The more I think about it, the more I dislike the film for its dry execution and dreadful writing.
Four minutes of pointlessness. The scene runs for ten.
The nail on the coffin is how Rogue Nation has Ilsa Faust, who is played by the scene-stealing Rebecca Ferguson and is just as charismatic and powerful as the male protagonist, while Spectre's women are only there for Bond to have sex with. This was a problem with Skyfall, and saw no improvement under Sam Mendes's direction and the same writing team's work. In short, I love the underrated Rogue Nation and my mind keeps coming back to how cinematic it is, while Spectre is something I have no interest in revisiting.
I'm afilmcionado, this is my first fully-fledged film review, and it's a striking departure from Wu Ki Lee's work. Allow me to apologize in advance if you find the quality to be subpar.
I watched The BFG, otherwise known as《吹夢的巨人》in Hong Kong, yesterday. The name has proven to be undesirable for marketing. What is a/the "BFG"? If you aren't a fan of Roald Dahl, you might not know, and I think that has hurt the film's box office intake immensely. The box office returns have been severely underwhelming for a Summer blockbuster directed by Spielberg. A much better decision is to call it "The Big Friendly Giant", which is clear, concise, and on point.
It takes roughly two times the budget for a film to break even at the box office.
The film's failure at the box office has perhaps damaged its reputation (after all, it's not a pleasant thing to be called a 'flop'). My review might as well act as an apology.
To no one's surprise, films directed by Steven Spielberg are at least good. Along with the usual Spielberg crew (e.g. Janusz Kaminski, John Williams, etcetera), this one even has the late Melissa Mathison (E.T.) serving as scriptwriter, Hollywood's leading producer Kathleen Kennedy behind, and most recent Oscar-winner Mark Rylance on screen. And of course, most importantly, the source material is arguably the most beloved story by one of the best – if not the best – children's writers of the last century, Roald Dahl. With such a great background, the hype for the film during its production and before its premiere at Cannes was oddly subdued and reaction from critics and audiences alike have been lukewarm at best. Why is that so?
Unfortunately, I have my fair share of criticisms.
Just by looking at the frame, don't you spot something uncanny?
Once the film started, it immediately reminded me of Spielberg's completely animated The Adventures of Tintin as well as Robert Zemeckis's ventures into motion capture and 3D animation during the 2000s (see: The Polar Express). Spielberg has worked with performance capture for Tintin before, and the industry-leading motion capture tech was at his fingertips. The production designers worked hard to create a motion capture-friendly set for the cast to work in, and the titular Giant was undoubtedly Rylance. Despite all of that, the picture quality was simply unsatisfactory and, in lack of a better word, creepy. Live action performance capture is difficult, but doable, and doesn't always require Avatar-level budgets (see: the brilliant Rise of the Planet of the Apes made with $93 million). With The BFG's budget of $140 million, I'd much rather Spielberg do the film in Tintin-style (even though I can see the reasons of doing it in live action and I'll explain it later). After all, Tintin was wildly enjoyable and I'm still waiting for its sequel today.
My other criticisms have something to do with the writing. Every film needs a story with high points and low points. However, it was difficult for the audience to keep up with the changing tempo when we follow a relatively intense scene with a slow one that tried to build up the trademark Spielberg sentimentality. That occurred for a few times and despite John Williams's greatest efforts to shape the changing mood with his score, it was still off-putting and worse, reduced the effect of the emotional poignancy.
The hugest challenge of adapting any Dahl property is getting his distinctly dark tone right. He wrote children's stories, but they were stories that involved Giants crushing children with their molars and witches transforming children into rodents. 1990's The Witches definitely amped up the horror but sadly undid that by including an ending that is in direct opposition of the story's spirit. For The BFG, Spielberg masterfully played up the wonder and marvel of Dahl's universe (those "dreams"!) but similar to The Witches, reduced the brutality. Never do we feel the evil Giants as a real, cruel threat. We don't see the Giants grabbing children out of dorm windows, and don't even expect to see them doing that in Sweden and America (as written in the book). The Giants lack a backstory, which was hinted at (Giants used to be nice?) but quickly glossed over. The villains's lack of depth hurt the story a lot, which is a part of the bigger problem of not being gutsy enough to portray Dahl's darkness. It's not as unforgivable as The Witches's ending, but certainly is a missed opportunity.
The Grand High Witch from The Witches looks way scarier than any of those man-eating giants from The BFG. Prosthetic's better than CGI I guess!
Other than that, the film was fine and better than anything else this Summer has to offer. The BFG was my favorite book when I was 10. I read parts of it every day and couldn't help but revisit the chapter about the Queen's breakfast again and again. Reading Sophie sitting on the windowsill and The BFG munching his bacons gave me an irresistible giddiness from the bottom of my heart. I'm very glad that Spielberg was able to translate that giddiness to the film medium as I relived my childhood almost beat-by-beat. There was no other director who was more perfect to do that job and Spielberg executed it flawlessly.
There were other moments of greatness as well (e.g. the final shot of the teaser trailer, in which we see The BFG's hand engulfing Sophie). I can't believe the Dahl estate actually allowed Mathison to introduce new plot elements. (Dahl was enraged at the changes made at adapting his stories, such as the aforementioned case of The Witches and the case of the classic Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory). Mathison actually pulled off the impossible task of improving upon Dahl's story. Dahl's diction was also very unique – he basically invented his own language with words like "frobscottle" and "whizzpopping". There was no better choice to make than to keep Dahl's dialogue verbatim, and I'm very glad the writers did that as well.
Rylance was unsurprisingly great, and Ruby Barnhill who played our female protagonist Sophie was good but not great. As per usual for Spielberg films, the cinematography, score, production design, and everything else were all top-notch. Despite being a little hungry for more, as a Roald Dahl fanatic, I'm satisfied. The BFG earns a 4 out of 5.
P.s. at the age of 69, Spielberg has shown no signs of stopping. Can't wait for Ready Player One, The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara, and Indiana Jones 5!
