Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sleepless (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A potentially good ‘B’ movie undone.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 came up with the oft used quote that “there is nothing new under the sun”. “Sleepless” proves that in spades.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Come the F*** on Bridget… who’s the Daddy?
The world’s favourite lonely-hearts diarist is back. Bridget (Renée Zellweger) once again starts the film ‘all by herself’, haunted by occasional meetings with ex-flame Mark D’Arcy (Colin Firth) – now married to Camilla (Agni Scott) – and facing the natural discomfort of the early funeral of another friend who has died way too young. And at 43, Bridget’s biological clock is also ticking towards parental midnight.
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Marvelous Cash Cows and How to Milk Them.
As just about everyone in the whole muggle world (or nomaj world if you’re reading this in the States) knows, FBaWtFT is the first of a five film spin-off series from the Potter franchise, still under the careful stewardship of David Yates. (And if the other films in the series were ‘amber-lit’ rather than ‘green-lit’, their production now seems assured after the US opening weekend alone has brought in nearly half its $180 million budget).
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Set in New York in the mid-1920’s Eddie Redmayne (“The Danish Girl”; “The Theory of Everything”) plays Newt Scamander, a Brit newly arrived with a case full of trouble. Newt is a bit like an amiable and ditsy David Attenborough, with a strong desire to protect and establish breeding colonies for endangered species. It’s fair to say though that these are creatures that even Sir David hasn’t yet filmed.
Within the battered old case (a forerunner of Hermione Grainger’s bag, which was probably borrowed from Mary Poppins), Newt stores a menagerie of strange and wonderful creatures which – after a bump and a mishap – get released by wannabe baker and muggle Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler, “Fanboys”). Newt has the job of rounding up the strays with the help of Tina (Katherine Waterston, “Steve Jobs”), an out of favour member of the Magical Congress of the USA (MACUSA). Unfortunately this couldn’t be happening at a worse time: something else – nothing to do with Newt – is wreaking havoc across New York and MACUSA is on red alert suspecting the involvement of a dark wizard, Gellert Grindelwald, following attacks in Europe. And keeping the secrets of wizardry from the NoMaj population is getting increasingly difficult, especially with the efforts of the “Second Salemers” movement run by Mary Lou (Samantha Morton, “Minority Report”) and her strange adopted family.
This film will obviously be an enormous success given the love of all things Potter, but is it any good? Well, its different for sure, being set many years before Potter and only having glancing references to Hogwarts and related matters. And that gives the opportunity to start afresh with new characters and new relationships which is refreshing. It’s all perfectly amiable, with Redmayne’s slightly embarrassed lack of eye-contact* in delivering his lines being charming. [* Is this perhaps the second leading character in a month that is high on the autistic spectrum?] . Redmayne does have a tendency to mutter though and (particularly with the sound system for the cinema I saw this in) this made a lot of his dialogue inaudible. Waterston makes for a charming if somewhat insipid heroine, not being given an awful lot to do in the action sequences.
Kowalski adds a humorous balance to the mixture, but the star comic turns are some of the creatures, especially the Niffler… a light fingered magpie-like creature with a voluminous pouch and expensive tastes!
In the ‘I-almost-know-who-that-is-behind-the-make-up-but-can’t-quite-place-him’ role is Ron “Hellboy” Perlman as the untrustworthy gangster Gnarlack. And in another cameo – and probably paid an enormous fee for his 30 seconds of screen time – is Johnny Depp, which was money well-wasted since, like most of his roles, he was completely unrecognisable (I only knew it was him from checking imdb afterwards).
At the pen is J.K.Rowling herself, and there are a few corking lines in the script. However, in common with many of her novels, there is also a tendency for extrapolation and padding. Some judicial editing could have knocked at least twenty minutes off its child-unfriendly 133 minute running time and made a better film. Undoubtedly the first half of the film is better than the second, with the finale slouching into – as my other half put it – “superhero” territory with much CGI destruction and smashing of glass. What is perhaps most surprising about the story is that there are few obvious set-ups for the next film.
Quirky and original, its a film that will no-doubt please Potter fans and it stands as a decent fantasy film in its own right. It’s difficult though to get the smell of big business and exploitation out of your nostrils: no doubt stockings throughout the world will be full of plush toy nifflers this Christmas.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Water Babies in Books
Oct 9, 2017
Worryingly Controversial
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic The Water Babies written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “A Fairytale for a land-baby” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
The Water Babies is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, The Water Babies has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
This year (2017), Calla Editions are printing a new hardback version of the original 1863 children’s classic The Water Babies written by the Anglican clergyman, Charles Kingsley (1819-75). Subtitled “A Fairytale for a land-baby” the book was intended for Kingsley’s youngest son and therefore was targeted at a juvenile demographic. However, as a result of the 1800’s vernacular and particularly deep themes, it has become more appropriate for older readers. With full-colour illustrations by Jessie Wilcox Smith (1863-1935) from the height of the golden age of illustration, this edition promises to be a collector’s item.
Charles Kingsley, the founder of England’s Christian Socialist movement, was exceedingly interested in the plight of the working class, particularly of the abuse and protection of children. This is reflected in his story about Tom, the ten-year-old London chimney sweep, who suffers ill-treatment at the hands of his employer. Tom, who has known nothing but the sooty streets of London, is embarrassed after scaring a beautiful young girl with his grimy appearance. Running away through a countryside he is unfamiliar with, Tom dives into a river to wash, however, falls asleep in the water.
On awakening, Tom discovers he has been transformed into a water baby; he can live and breathe amongst all the fishes and other mystical water creatures. Forgetting his horrible past, Tom is soon frolicking with the characters he meets, teasing and provoking unsuspecting individuals. But the fairies in charge of water babies are determined to teach him many lessons about truth, mercy, justice and courage.
The Water Babies is a morality fable with fairy-tale-like qualities. It educates young readers about the consequences of their actions but also enlightens them about the cruelty of some adults. Kingsley often talks to the reader (in this instance his son), drawing them into the story and making the scenarios as relatable as possible. The magical underwater setting is merely a veil to hide the lessons Kingsley is attempting to preach.
For the adult reader, Kingsley has a much more political message. Written at the time of political and scientific advancement, particularly in respect to the concept of natural selection, Kingsley attempts to ridicule the ideas of thinkers such as Charles Darwin by producing a satirical narrative. He suggests that scientists are fools who use unnecessarily long and foreign terms, evidenced by his use of the made-up subject of Necrobioneopalæonthydrochthonanthropopithekology. He also goes as far as to mock the majority of adults and appears to be completely anti-Irish people.
In some instances, Charles Kingsley goes too far in his satire, resulting in something that would not be accepted by publishers today. In order for Tom to be the hero of the story, adults need to be viewed as less than good – people who need to be punished for their discourteous treatment of children, which in this instance, they are, and quite graphically. But the most controversial theme explored is death. The more naïve may not cotton on to the fact that Tom falling asleep in the river equates to drowning, yet that is exactly what happened. Only through death can one become a water baby. To make matters slightly more alarming, Kingsley does not see this death as a bad thing; he describes Tom’s new life as something far better than life on earth – coming from a clergyman this is understandable – which suggests that death is better than living for an abused child.
Despite these controversies, Kingsley’s prose is humorous and entertaining - far more mind-boggling than you may initially expect. With characters named Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid and Professor Ptthmllnsprts, there is plenty to make readers laugh. Some of the hilarities may go above the heads of children since the jargon is no longer used in today’s society, however, adults will be able to appreciate the comical aspect.
Over 150 years old, The Water Babies has remained a classic. It reveals the political, scientific and social situations of the mid-1800s, yet it contains wisdom that is still relevant today. As Kingsley’s daughter Rose says in the introduction, “What a fine thing it is to love truth, mercy, justice, courage, and all things noble and of good report.” No matter how peculiar this novel is, it says a lot about the virtues of our character.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Big Trail (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“The Indians are my friends…” Breck Coleman – John Wayne
Not exactly a statement that would exemplify the Career of a man rightly or wrongly associated as being the Cowboy of the Cowboy and Indian movies. But there is no doubt that John Wayne was certainly one of the biggest western stars of cinema.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
And The Big Trail is where it really begins for Wayne, but this 1930’s classic was a box office failure, coming not only at the dawn of sound film, but at the time of The Great Depression. It would be another decade by the time “The Duke” wold be born and John Wayne would take his crown as the western superstar which we all know today.
But The Big Trail, originally entitled The Oregon Trail, is not really a John Wayne vehicle. He was a relative unknown actor alongside stage talent, many of whom were drafted into Hollywood at this time simply because they could give a decent vocal performance, as many a silent star was falling, failing to adapt the talkies.
But again, sound is not the selling point of this movie. This was one of a handful of films which pioneered the 70mm film format, in this case, Fox Grandeur, or Grandeur 70. A none anamorphic widescreen format, which whilst not the first attempt, nor the first 70mm film format, it was the nearest to which would succeed later.
2oth Century Fox would change cinema in 1953 with the release of the first CinemaScope film, The Robe, a year after the debut of Cinerama, but Grandeur more closest resembles Todd AO, a format which is still technically used today though in a somewhat different way. The secret to CinemaScope’s later success was in many ways the reason for the failure of Grandeur and that was the fact that CinemaScope was an anamorphic process, screening the image from a regular 35mm film and expanding with the lens, therefore making it a lot cheaper to adapt existing projectors and auditoriums.
Grandeur on the other hand was a larger film format and required a complete upgrade to theatres and therefore, especially at the dawn of the depression era, was financially untenable. Only two theatres in the U.S. would ever show this film in its widescreen glory, with rest showing the alternate 35mm Academy version.
And this film, had SIX versions shot simultaneously, in four different languages, 35mm and 70mm, each requiring different takes with different cameras or casts. This was an incredible feet but one which would soon be reduced with the use of audio dubbing, subtitles and ability to pan and scan.
The problem with this film is simple. It has a loose plot but no real twists and turns. This is almost a documentary following the wagon train trail across the west as group of pioneers make their way to the better life and building the United States, or at least personifying the romantic version of it.
But the film’s pacing and visual style works best through the widescreen lens, a beautiful journey with the untamed west as backdrop, but this is not the the version that most people have seen. The majority only saw the 35mm version which is 20 minutes shorter, edited more quickly and simply doesn’t have the visual flare of the Grandeur version. And without this vast visual canvas, the thousands of extras and props are almost cut from the film, a film with now feels a bit pointless and bit wayward.
Starring an unknown, though despite his hammy acting, Wayne manages to hold his own, the pacing is rushed and the fact that this is an epic journey which we are embarking on with them is somewhat lost.
The widescreen version’s main failing is the sound, which is inferior and poorly mixed in comparison to the 35mm cut, which is crisper and louder, but sound was never going to this movie’s strength and it was still rudimentary at this point. But on a visual level, considering the age of the print, the cinematography is up there as being some of the best, with scale and dare I say, “grandeur” about it.
This is an interesting film to watch now, though unless you are a strong western fan, I would say that it will not thrill, though as a peace of cinematic history, it is littered with footnotes and it very watchable.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Silent cinema is not my strongest subject but one which I have been making a concerted effort to learn about over the past decade, but admittedly at a slow pace. The idea of sitting through a silent film can seem to be chore to a modern audience and to be honest, it can be inconceivable to the vast majority, but these attitudes only serve to deprive us of 30 years of cinema, both in primitive evolution and cinematic excellence.
The notion is that silent movies where almost amateurish is style, a three decade long film school to keep up occupied until the Talkies turned up and “film” as we know it, was born. This is wrong. Film is visual medium, Movies, moving pictures, all of which were accompanied by music by the way, so the term “silent” only really refers to the lack of synchronized sound and dialogue.
ydvjeYet, the core of film is visual. Modern cinema is a about perfecting the mesh of media forms, music, photography, narrative and sound. But without dialogue, silent movies had a challenge on their hands and one which The Passion Of Joan Of Arc, one of the last silent movies of the era, rose to perfectly.
Visually, this could have been made yesterday. A truly timeless blend of artistic and innovative cinematography, fast paced editing and outstanding performances. The Danish director, Carl Theodore Dreyer mastered the close up, naturalistic acting and manages to tell the procedural story of the trial of Joan Of Arc in such a gripping manner that you will forget that there is no spoken dialogue, yet you are literally putting the intertitles in to the mouths of the cast.
Not a single cast member is wasted, with every one pouring their hearts and souls in to the camera in such nuanced ways that it can be left to debate and interpretation as to exactly who is thinking or feeling what as Joan, Maria Falconetti in her third and final film role, steals the screen with her tortured soul and face shown almost entirely in close up.
the-passion-of-joan-of-arc-large-pictureOver acting has given way to strong acting, each shot designed to allow us access to her soul as she, in a plot not to dissimilar from the last hours of Jesus Christ, is torn between torture and certain death of abandoning her faith and spending the rest of her life imprisoned with only bread and water to look forward too.
The script is based on the actually accounts of the future saint’s trial in 1431 but the real events took place over 18 months whilst this either compresses this into one day or takes place on the last one, but the feeling is that this is the one and only trial of Joan so in that sense, theatrical licence has been taken but it hardly matters. The facts are present and the story is harrowing, made more so by an almost perfect production, led by a controversial, almost Kubrickian director, forcing his cast to suffer for their art, yet this version of events is also contested.
joan-of-arc-soundtrackFor everyone out there who believes that Silent movies are just cut to the chase comedies, or overly flamboyant and patronising filler until “real films” are made, this may just serve as wake up call, that films have evolved, but Sound would actually set the industry back in the 1930’s, as the new audio based art form evolved just as movies had up until this point., but Joan Of Arc should help all see that film has always been able to convey anything, from humour to horror; Real of make-believe.
Many believe that this movie is one of the best ever made and I do believe that to be true. An outstanding and forgotten film to all but critics and film buffs, one which everyone should see.
VERSION
The version which I watched was The Criterion Edition of the 1985 restoration of Dreyer’s “Lost” original cut. The music to this film was never deemed to be that important so there are several compositions which have been attached to the film over the years.
The “Lo Duca” cut, which was the a 61 minute version (1951) doing the rounds for years after the original cut was lost in a fire soon after the film’s release, was cut together by Joseph-Marie Lo Duca after discovering a negative in a vault. This version, as well as the “Director’s Cut” are both available on the Blu-ray, whilst it appeared that the 1985 restoration (Director’s Cut) is more widely available on DVD.
The notion is that silent movies where almost amateurish is style, a three decade long film school to keep up occupied until the Talkies turned up and “film” as we know it, was born. This is wrong. Film is visual medium, Movies, moving pictures, all of which were accompanied by music by the way, so the term “silent” only really refers to the lack of synchronized sound and dialogue.
ydvjeYet, the core of film is visual. Modern cinema is a about perfecting the mesh of media forms, music, photography, narrative and sound. But without dialogue, silent movies had a challenge on their hands and one which The Passion Of Joan Of Arc, one of the last silent movies of the era, rose to perfectly.
Visually, this could have been made yesterday. A truly timeless blend of artistic and innovative cinematography, fast paced editing and outstanding performances. The Danish director, Carl Theodore Dreyer mastered the close up, naturalistic acting and manages to tell the procedural story of the trial of Joan Of Arc in such a gripping manner that you will forget that there is no spoken dialogue, yet you are literally putting the intertitles in to the mouths of the cast.
Not a single cast member is wasted, with every one pouring their hearts and souls in to the camera in such nuanced ways that it can be left to debate and interpretation as to exactly who is thinking or feeling what as Joan, Maria Falconetti in her third and final film role, steals the screen with her tortured soul and face shown almost entirely in close up.
the-passion-of-joan-of-arc-large-pictureOver acting has given way to strong acting, each shot designed to allow us access to her soul as she, in a plot not to dissimilar from the last hours of Jesus Christ, is torn between torture and certain death of abandoning her faith and spending the rest of her life imprisoned with only bread and water to look forward too.
The script is based on the actually accounts of the future saint’s trial in 1431 but the real events took place over 18 months whilst this either compresses this into one day or takes place on the last one, but the feeling is that this is the one and only trial of Joan so in that sense, theatrical licence has been taken but it hardly matters. The facts are present and the story is harrowing, made more so by an almost perfect production, led by a controversial, almost Kubrickian director, forcing his cast to suffer for their art, yet this version of events is also contested.
joan-of-arc-soundtrackFor everyone out there who believes that Silent movies are just cut to the chase comedies, or overly flamboyant and patronising filler until “real films” are made, this may just serve as wake up call, that films have evolved, but Sound would actually set the industry back in the 1930’s, as the new audio based art form evolved just as movies had up until this point., but Joan Of Arc should help all see that film has always been able to convey anything, from humour to horror; Real of make-believe.
Many believe that this movie is one of the best ever made and I do believe that to be true. An outstanding and forgotten film to all but critics and film buffs, one which everyone should see.
VERSION
The version which I watched was The Criterion Edition of the 1985 restoration of Dreyer’s “Lost” original cut. The music to this film was never deemed to be that important so there are several compositions which have been attached to the film over the years.
The “Lo Duca” cut, which was the a 61 minute version (1951) doing the rounds for years after the original cut was lost in a fire soon after the film’s release, was cut together by Joseph-Marie Lo Duca after discovering a negative in a vault. This version, as well as the “Director’s Cut” are both available on the Blu-ray, whilst it appeared that the 1985 restoration (Director’s Cut) is more widely available on DVD.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
All hail the Titans
2014’s Godzilla was a thrilling and somewhat underrated return to form for the king of the kaiju. Directed by visionary film-maker Gareth Edwards, Godzilla’s return to the big screen was beautifully filmed with some of the best set pieces ever seen on celluloid. It certainly made up for the Roland Emmerich monstrosity that shall remain nameless here.
Little did we know 5 years ago that Edwards’ mega movie would be the start of a franchise culminating in a battle of the ages: Godzilla vs Kong. Follow-up film Kong: Skull Island was again, beautifully filmed, feeling like a movie from a completely different era. Now the follow-up to the follow-up is here. Still with us? Good.
Members of the crypto-zoological agency Monarch face off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla, who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah. When these ancient super-species-thought to be mere myths-rise again, they all vie for supremacy, leaving humanity’s very existence hanging in the balance.
Taking over from Gareth Edwards after he chose not to return to the franchise is director Michael Dougherty. If the name rings a bell, it’s because he co-wrote X2 and directed the fantastic horror comedy, Krampus. Used to much-lower budgets than this $200million behemoth, Dougherty crafts a film that throws everything including the kitchen sink at the audience, but lacks the lightness of touch that made its predecessors such popcorn-munching fun.
With a cast that includes Stranger Things’ Millie Bobby Brown, Vera Farmiga, Sally Hawkins, Ken Watanabe, Charles Dance and Kyle Chandler, you’d be forgiven that everything from a characterisation point of view would be spot on. Unfortunately, that just isn’t the case. The story and screenplay, penned by Dougherty himself is really lacklustre with poor, cringeworthy dialogue and some wooden performances by actors who should really know better. The attempts at Marvel-esque humour fall completely flat and this is a real shame.
Making her feature film debut, Mille Bobby Brown salvages what she can from the script and performs very well but when the screenplay doesn’t know what to do with individual characters, they’re tossed aside as Ghidorah fodder and completely forgotten about. Not only is this frustrating for the audience, but it certainly isn’t script-writing best practice.
Thankfully, things start to turn around when it comes to the cinematography. Lawrence Sher, who has worked on Paul, The Hangover and the upcoming Joker movie picks some outstanding shots that make you feel very much part of this almost apocalyptic universe the Titans are roaming. While stopping short of beautiful, many of the sequences are too messy for that, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a very attractive film indeed and the colours used are ethereal in their nature and require the biggest screen possible to get the most from them.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work
The special effects too make a lasting impression. This was not a cheap film to make and thankfully this shows on screen. Whilst naturally heavy on CGI, Dougherty has stated that practical effects had been used wherever possible. Perhaps the biggest compliment here is that it’s impossible to tell where practical meets CG.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work that has gone into making Godzilla 2. Mothra in particular is a sight to behold.
Bear McCreary’s score too is very good. After working on relatively low-budget films until now, his orchestral and vocal compositions work beautifully with what’s being shown on screen and the music has an operatic vibe that feels truly fitting of a film of this magnitude.
Nevertheless, Godzilla: King of the Monster’s downfall is in that shoddy script. None of the actors bring their a-game here and moments that should have emotional poignancy don’t hit home because they’re not allowed to. Within 10 minutes of the film’s opening, we’re smack bang in the middle of an action sequence with it rarely letting up until the thrilling finale 2 hours later.
Overall, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a perfectly adequate outing for the king of the kaiju but one that comes with a dash of disappointment. The bar was set incredibly high by Gareth Edwards and while the special effects and action scenes are impressive, that’s not enough to mask poor storytelling and thinly drawn characters.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/29/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-review-all-hail-the-titans/
Little did we know 5 years ago that Edwards’ mega movie would be the start of a franchise culminating in a battle of the ages: Godzilla vs Kong. Follow-up film Kong: Skull Island was again, beautifully filmed, feeling like a movie from a completely different era. Now the follow-up to the follow-up is here. Still with us? Good.
Members of the crypto-zoological agency Monarch face off against a battery of god-sized monsters, including the mighty Godzilla, who collides with Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed King Ghidorah. When these ancient super-species-thought to be mere myths-rise again, they all vie for supremacy, leaving humanity’s very existence hanging in the balance.
Taking over from Gareth Edwards after he chose not to return to the franchise is director Michael Dougherty. If the name rings a bell, it’s because he co-wrote X2 and directed the fantastic horror comedy, Krampus. Used to much-lower budgets than this $200million behemoth, Dougherty crafts a film that throws everything including the kitchen sink at the audience, but lacks the lightness of touch that made its predecessors such popcorn-munching fun.
With a cast that includes Stranger Things’ Millie Bobby Brown, Vera Farmiga, Sally Hawkins, Ken Watanabe, Charles Dance and Kyle Chandler, you’d be forgiven that everything from a characterisation point of view would be spot on. Unfortunately, that just isn’t the case. The story and screenplay, penned by Dougherty himself is really lacklustre with poor, cringeworthy dialogue and some wooden performances by actors who should really know better. The attempts at Marvel-esque humour fall completely flat and this is a real shame.
Making her feature film debut, Mille Bobby Brown salvages what she can from the script and performs very well but when the screenplay doesn’t know what to do with individual characters, they’re tossed aside as Ghidorah fodder and completely forgotten about. Not only is this frustrating for the audience, but it certainly isn’t script-writing best practice.
Thankfully, things start to turn around when it comes to the cinematography. Lawrence Sher, who has worked on Paul, The Hangover and the upcoming Joker movie picks some outstanding shots that make you feel very much part of this almost apocalyptic universe the Titans are roaming. While stopping short of beautiful, many of the sequences are too messy for that, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a very attractive film indeed and the colours used are ethereal in their nature and require the biggest screen possible to get the most from them.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work
The special effects too make a lasting impression. This was not a cheap film to make and thankfully this shows on screen. Whilst naturally heavy on CGI, Dougherty has stated that practical effects had been used wherever possible. Perhaps the biggest compliment here is that it’s impossible to tell where practical meets CG.
Godzilla is beautifully rendered and while the look is less successful on King Ghidorah, it’s not enough to detract from the exceptional visual effects work that has gone into making Godzilla 2. Mothra in particular is a sight to behold.
Bear McCreary’s score too is very good. After working on relatively low-budget films until now, his orchestral and vocal compositions work beautifully with what’s being shown on screen and the music has an operatic vibe that feels truly fitting of a film of this magnitude.
Nevertheless, Godzilla: King of the Monster’s downfall is in that shoddy script. None of the actors bring their a-game here and moments that should have emotional poignancy don’t hit home because they’re not allowed to. Within 10 minutes of the film’s opening, we’re smack bang in the middle of an action sequence with it rarely letting up until the thrilling finale 2 hours later.
Overall, Godzilla: King of the Monsters is a perfectly adequate outing for the king of the kaiju but one that comes with a dash of disappointment. The bar was set incredibly high by Gareth Edwards and while the special effects and action scenes are impressive, that’s not enough to mask poor storytelling and thinly drawn characters.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/29/godzilla-king-of-the-monsters-review-all-hail-the-titans/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An ambitious but flawed finale
M. Night Shyamalan is back behind the camera! Quick, run! Joking aside, Shyamalan’s career is as convoluted as his signature third-act twists. Starting off with the fabulous The Sixth Sense and then almost derailing his career with catastrophic failures like The Happening, After Earth and dare I mention it, The Last Airbender, it appeared we had all but lost that once promising directorial flair.
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Michael Bay had a lot to prove with the third instalment of his big bot franchise. The scathing reviews of Revenge of the Fallen from nearly every critic who went to see it proved that even giant robots aren’t safe from the picky eyes of the global audience. Now, I may get lambasted for this but I preferred number 2 to number 1, so let’s see if number 3 can impress.
Here, Bay returns to helm the latest addition: Dark of the Moon, it’s a good film nonetheless but it’s sci-fi themes, more so than in either of the previous offerings fail to provide enough impact to make it the best in the series.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon picks up three years after the last film and a lot has changed. Sam Witwicky again played by the fantastic Shia LeBeouf is now living in Washington, envious of his new girlfriend Carly Spencer and her fabulous lifestyle. Carly, played by newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whitely is about as wooden as a character can get; Whitely’s performance is very laboured and her on screen scenes suffer as a result; she’s a disappointment in a film that doesn’t really require it’s characters to do much; so that shows how bad she actually is.
Megan Fox is actually missed this time around, but it’s not too much of a problem because Rosie’s character is given exactly the same clothes, the same pout and practically the same lines.
Michael Bay has also lined up the legendary John Malkovich as Sam’s troubled new boss, his screen time is worth a watch but he feels wasted considering his lines amount to about 10 minutes of screen time. Patrick Dempsey also stars as good guy gone back; Dylan Gould.
The special effects coupled with the fantastic 3D make Transformers 3 a spectacle to watch, the bots are seamlessly integrated into the picture alongside their human counterparts and deliver once again, these films really are the pinnacle now for special effects.
Bay has managed to fashion a half coherent story out of the toy franchise which many critics were sceptical of, but it works really well. The film focuses on the space race of the 60’s and the reasons why the US wanted to beat everyone to the moon. In short, the Decepticons are looking for something that crash-landed on the moon; if they find it, then Cybertron will be reborn, using Earth as a template; oh no!
The last hour is just carnage, carnage, carnage as the entire city of Chicago is plunged into a post-apocalyptic world where the Decepticons rule and the Autobots are, alongside humans as slaves. Here, Bay really showcases his prowess for stunning cinematography and first class special effects, one scene in particular, involving a glass skyscraper is particularly awe-inspiring.
Speaking of the robots themselves, all the favourites return with their fantastic voice acting. Peter Cullen delivers Optimus Prime in his usual, gruff manner and a welcome addition is Star Trek’s Leonard Nimoy as veteran Autobot leader Sentinel Prime. Hugo Weaving also returns as a rough looking Megatron.
The problem that blights Transformers 3 is that there’s too much going on. I found myself lost in parts of the story because the film is constantly rushing to get to the next plot line. It’s frustrating that a film franchise criticised for its lack of story is penalised for having too much of one this time around, but this is the case here. As such, some of the best characters don’t get screen time. Josh Duhamel is only in the film for 5 minutes at a time, whilst Sam’s parents only get brief appearances which is a tragic shame as they are, all in all, the best human characters in the franchise.
Overall, Transformers has become one of my favourite film franchises of all time; it delivers on its promise and doesn’t pretend it’s going to be something else. Yes, they’re far too long (this one is just short of 3 hours), they’re exceptionally loud and mind-numbingly obnoxious but that’s what you should want from an action film. Transformers 3 delivers, and it delivers it like a smack in the face; but it falls down in a couple of areas where the others didn’t.
Michael Bay is a very talented film director who gives the best out of everything, but in response to his critics from the last movie, he has developed too much of the story and as such, it feels disjointed and ultimately a little disappointing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/07/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-2011/
Here, Bay returns to helm the latest addition: Dark of the Moon, it’s a good film nonetheless but it’s sci-fi themes, more so than in either of the previous offerings fail to provide enough impact to make it the best in the series.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon picks up three years after the last film and a lot has changed. Sam Witwicky again played by the fantastic Shia LeBeouf is now living in Washington, envious of his new girlfriend Carly Spencer and her fabulous lifestyle. Carly, played by newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whitely is about as wooden as a character can get; Whitely’s performance is very laboured and her on screen scenes suffer as a result; she’s a disappointment in a film that doesn’t really require it’s characters to do much; so that shows how bad she actually is.
Megan Fox is actually missed this time around, but it’s not too much of a problem because Rosie’s character is given exactly the same clothes, the same pout and practically the same lines.
Michael Bay has also lined up the legendary John Malkovich as Sam’s troubled new boss, his screen time is worth a watch but he feels wasted considering his lines amount to about 10 minutes of screen time. Patrick Dempsey also stars as good guy gone back; Dylan Gould.
The special effects coupled with the fantastic 3D make Transformers 3 a spectacle to watch, the bots are seamlessly integrated into the picture alongside their human counterparts and deliver once again, these films really are the pinnacle now for special effects.
Bay has managed to fashion a half coherent story out of the toy franchise which many critics were sceptical of, but it works really well. The film focuses on the space race of the 60’s and the reasons why the US wanted to beat everyone to the moon. In short, the Decepticons are looking for something that crash-landed on the moon; if they find it, then Cybertron will be reborn, using Earth as a template; oh no!
The last hour is just carnage, carnage, carnage as the entire city of Chicago is plunged into a post-apocalyptic world where the Decepticons rule and the Autobots are, alongside humans as slaves. Here, Bay really showcases his prowess for stunning cinematography and first class special effects, one scene in particular, involving a glass skyscraper is particularly awe-inspiring.
Speaking of the robots themselves, all the favourites return with their fantastic voice acting. Peter Cullen delivers Optimus Prime in his usual, gruff manner and a welcome addition is Star Trek’s Leonard Nimoy as veteran Autobot leader Sentinel Prime. Hugo Weaving also returns as a rough looking Megatron.
The problem that blights Transformers 3 is that there’s too much going on. I found myself lost in parts of the story because the film is constantly rushing to get to the next plot line. It’s frustrating that a film franchise criticised for its lack of story is penalised for having too much of one this time around, but this is the case here. As such, some of the best characters don’t get screen time. Josh Duhamel is only in the film for 5 minutes at a time, whilst Sam’s parents only get brief appearances which is a tragic shame as they are, all in all, the best human characters in the franchise.
Overall, Transformers has become one of my favourite film franchises of all time; it delivers on its promise and doesn’t pretend it’s going to be something else. Yes, they’re far too long (this one is just short of 3 hours), they’re exceptionally loud and mind-numbingly obnoxious but that’s what you should want from an action film. Transformers 3 delivers, and it delivers it like a smack in the face; but it falls down in a couple of areas where the others didn’t.
Michael Bay is a very talented film director who gives the best out of everything, but in response to his critics from the last movie, he has developed too much of the story and as such, it feels disjointed and ultimately a little disappointing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/07/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-2011/