Post by Doomsday on Jan 25, 2021 15:35:07 GMT -5
News of the World
When watching a movie like News of the World I couldn't help but wonder how much my enjoyment of a movie should be affected by the fact that it's not really offering anything new. On the one hand it's a good, engaging movie with fine performances and a solid directing. On the other hand it's, well, nothing we haven't seen before. Do I judge a movie based strictly on its own merit? If not, how much do I factor in that this isn't really a movie that needed to be made in the first place? I suppose I'll find out as I type the next few sentences.
Tom Hanks stars as Captain Jefferson Kidd, an ex-Confederate who now goes from town to town with collections of newspapers reading the 'news of the world' to anyone with ten cents to spare and willing to listen. While on the road he happens upon a ransacked wagon and a young girl Johanna, a white captive who had lived with Kiowas but was rescued and on her way to live with her remaining kin. After some consideration Kidd decides to take her on the dangerous 400 mile journey himself and naturally they both learn about each other along the way. Much like the journey, it's a slow, involved film that throws in enough to keep your interest and the movie helps you explore Kidd's and Johanna's backstorites. In fact it's a movie that I'm surprised was written and directed by Paul Greengrass, the filmmaker at the help of such nail-biting films like United 93, Captain Phillips and the better 3 Bourne films. Well, 2 of the better ones, 1 so-so. So what is he doing making a slow-burning western like News of the World? Maybe this was one of those filmmaking itches that an auteur needs to scratch every so often. Maybe this was his attempt to make a John Ford film. After all, this movie is a quasi-Searchers and even has a couple of shots that clearly serve as nods to it. Tom Hanks is no John Wayne but he's not supposed to be. Kidd is a compassionate traveler and isn't saddled with the tropes of 'being haunted by his deeds' or 'was a bad man in his past life.' He's a man trying to get by with the hopes of seeing his wife once more. He sees the opportunity of taking Johanna to her family as a good deed that only he can competently do. But he's also an ex-soldier so you shouldn't mess with him either as a few people come to learn over the course of the movie.
So I think with that in mind, if you're looking for a western that does most everything right and would fit nicely alongside any number of westerns then News of the World would be a good choice. At the same time it doesn't do much to stand out or be unique or imaginative. It's a pretty boilerplate storyline which makes it predictable at parts and probably won't be discussed too often in the near future. I would compare it to a movie like Appaloosa, another western which is perfectly fine but gets completely lost in the mix when compared to any other movie in the genre. I personally won't judge News of the World by that criteria though. Not every movie needs to push the limits to the edge. And maybe this is another case of me just being happy to see something new so I'm being a little easier on it than I otherwise would. Don't rush out to see News of the World if only because you've seen it before but that doesn't diminish the fact that's its a good, well-acted and engaging story.
B+ so says Doomsday
When watching a movie like News of the World I couldn't help but wonder how much my enjoyment of a movie should be affected by the fact that it's not really offering anything new. On the one hand it's a good, engaging movie with fine performances and a solid directing. On the other hand it's, well, nothing we haven't seen before. Do I judge a movie based strictly on its own merit? If not, how much do I factor in that this isn't really a movie that needed to be made in the first place? I suppose I'll find out as I type the next few sentences.
Tom Hanks stars as Captain Jefferson Kidd, an ex-Confederate who now goes from town to town with collections of newspapers reading the 'news of the world' to anyone with ten cents to spare and willing to listen. While on the road he happens upon a ransacked wagon and a young girl Johanna, a white captive who had lived with Kiowas but was rescued and on her way to live with her remaining kin. After some consideration Kidd decides to take her on the dangerous 400 mile journey himself and naturally they both learn about each other along the way. Much like the journey, it's a slow, involved film that throws in enough to keep your interest and the movie helps you explore Kidd's and Johanna's backstorites. In fact it's a movie that I'm surprised was written and directed by Paul Greengrass, the filmmaker at the help of such nail-biting films like United 93, Captain Phillips and the better 3 Bourne films. Well, 2 of the better ones, 1 so-so. So what is he doing making a slow-burning western like News of the World? Maybe this was one of those filmmaking itches that an auteur needs to scratch every so often. Maybe this was his attempt to make a John Ford film. After all, this movie is a quasi-Searchers and even has a couple of shots that clearly serve as nods to it. Tom Hanks is no John Wayne but he's not supposed to be. Kidd is a compassionate traveler and isn't saddled with the tropes of 'being haunted by his deeds' or 'was a bad man in his past life.' He's a man trying to get by with the hopes of seeing his wife once more. He sees the opportunity of taking Johanna to her family as a good deed that only he can competently do. But he's also an ex-soldier so you shouldn't mess with him either as a few people come to learn over the course of the movie.
So I think with that in mind, if you're looking for a western that does most everything right and would fit nicely alongside any number of westerns then News of the World would be a good choice. At the same time it doesn't do much to stand out or be unique or imaginative. It's a pretty boilerplate storyline which makes it predictable at parts and probably won't be discussed too often in the near future. I would compare it to a movie like Appaloosa, another western which is perfectly fine but gets completely lost in the mix when compared to any other movie in the genre. I personally won't judge News of the World by that criteria though. Not every movie needs to push the limits to the edge. And maybe this is another case of me just being happy to see something new so I'm being a little easier on it than I otherwise would. Don't rush out to see News of the World if only because you've seen it before but that doesn't diminish the fact that's its a good, well-acted and engaging story.
B+ so says Doomsday