Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Life after Gravity.
Mankind is on the verge of a major milestone. The “Pilgrim” probe is returning from Mars containing soil samples that might spell the discovery of the first palpable evidence of life beyond earth. Proving that earth scientists are not completely incompetent, the probe is being returned not to earth but to a lab on the International Space Station where strict quarantine can be maintained. This key mission requirement is the responsibility of Miranda North (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation”). Supporting her is an international crew including fellow doctor David Harris (Jake Gyllenhaal, “Source Code”), professional astronaut Rory Adams (Ryan Reynolds, “Deadpool”) and Hugh Derry (Ariyon Bakare), the lead scientist studying the samples. Needless to say, the soil samples yield more promise than Derry could have ever hoped for (or North could have feared). A crisis of growth and death ensues in a manner that fans of “Alien” will be suitably familiar with. Can the crew survive against all the odds?
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Diana hits rock bottom… as does the script.
Discordant strings sound as the royal party arrives at Sandringham for Christmas. “Is she here yet” intones the Queen. “No ma’am” her major domo replies. “Then she’s late”. Cut to a soulful choral version of “Perfect Day” as Diana Princess of Wales (née Spencer) arrives via a dramatic aerial shot. Hugs go to her sons William and Harry before she unhappily stalks through the corridors like a hunted animal.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
Kris Karcher (10 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jan 5, 2018
Better then it looks.
Contains spoilers, click to show
It’s been years since I’ve seen the original 1995 Jumanji, but from what I can remember as a 5-10 year old (not sure when I got around to owning the VHS) I enjoyed it. Robin Williams was on fire in the 90’s and turned in another comparable performance in this fun action adventure film. This new incarnation of the Jumanji tale changes direction a bit. For one it swaps the outdated board game that contains an entire jungle world inside it, for a more cultural relevant video game console that contains an entire jungle world inside it. I’m actually surprised they didn't use an iPad. 2017’s Jumanji also adds in a body swapping element. The teens that enter the game suddenly become adult video game characters. Complete with skills and weakness of varying degrees of usefulness.
Semantics aside, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is also a serviceable blockbuster flick. It’s a fun film that moves at a decent pace and avoids a lot of the typical dull spots most popcorn flicks fall victim to. The adult cast is a fun mixture of comedic talent and have some great chemistry together. The teenage cast less so but they have a more limited role in the film. I enjoyed watching the adult cast attempt to convey the teenagers “inside” them. Dwayne Johnson does this particularly well, playing a timid nerdy teenager trapped in the body of a jacked, smoldering, elite fighting machine. The film purposefully miscast each role. Kevin Hart play’s the avatar of a 6ft football star, Jack black stands in for a Mean Chick-esc selfie obsessed teenage girl, and the bad ass Karen Gillan plays the avatar of an insecure self-conscious teenage girl. The dichotomy of the characters real-life personalities always being at odds with their avatars new physical and mental attributes provides much of the comedy. Not all of it lands, but enough does and they don’t overdo it.
Once we enter the world of Jumanji the characters attempt to figure out how the “game” works. This leads to some humorous video game style exposition. I found this method of exposition to be unique and interesting. Incorporating NPC’s (Non-playable characters) whose sole purpose is to help players figure out what is going on and how to play the game was a fun and meta way to advance the story. It sort of reminds me of some of the things I enjoyed about 2012’s Wreck-It Ralph.
Then the gang runs into the other player in the game and another star of the film, Nick Jonas. Jonas plays Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough who is the avatar of Zack a teenage boy sucked into the game in 1997 (Jonas uses 1997 lingo frequently. Radical.) and has lived in the jungle for what he claims to be “a few months”. This leads to the biggest missed opportunity of the film. Time apparently moves differently in Jumanji. A few months in Jumanji translates to 20 years in real life. When Zack is told he has been missing 20 years this should have been a major B plot. They do try and add some weight to the situation by showing how deeply affected Zack is by this news, but I feel they could have explored this dynamic a bit further. Especially when it comes to the ending. Which is a bit anticlimactic. Once they all end up working together to escape Jumanji they all are all transported back to their respective timelines and it would appear as though no time has passed. So it sort of ditches the whole being stuck in the game for 20 years angle and instead chooses to allow Zack to live a full and complete life starting from 1997. Also, the main cast seems to be unaffected timeline wise. All of this film took place while they were down in the basement serving their detentions. It would have made for a much more interesting ending if they return to their bodies and find out that in the real world they were gone for a longer period of time. Even just a week or so would have added an interesting dynamic to the pretty flat and standard ending. They do end up meeting up with grown-up Zack (Played by Colin Hanks) and there is a nice little payoff to the quasi-romance Nick Jonas and Jack Black had throughout the film. (Yes you read that correctly.) Alex named his daughter after Bethany who saved his life in the jungle.
The four teenagers all learn valuable life lessons inside the jungle. Fridge leans to appreciate his friend Spencer. Spencer learns to man up and take risks. Bethany learns to care about something other than herself and her popularity, and Martha learns to come out of her shell a bit and open up. While I often find these types of stories to be heavy-handed and snooze-worthy Jumanji manages to keep the gushy feel good stuff to a minimum. It’s there, and it’s obvious but it’s not in your face enough to bring down the movie.
Ultimately I will go ahead and recommend Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle if your into Action comedy that doesn't ever take itself too seriously. I repeat this is not a serious movie. But it is a mildly funny, family-friendly romp that I fully expect anyone who paid for a ticket to at least get their monies worth. Provided they came in with the right expectations.
Semantics aside, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is also a serviceable blockbuster flick. It’s a fun film that moves at a decent pace and avoids a lot of the typical dull spots most popcorn flicks fall victim to. The adult cast is a fun mixture of comedic talent and have some great chemistry together. The teenage cast less so but they have a more limited role in the film. I enjoyed watching the adult cast attempt to convey the teenagers “inside” them. Dwayne Johnson does this particularly well, playing a timid nerdy teenager trapped in the body of a jacked, smoldering, elite fighting machine. The film purposefully miscast each role. Kevin Hart play’s the avatar of a 6ft football star, Jack black stands in for a Mean Chick-esc selfie obsessed teenage girl, and the bad ass Karen Gillan plays the avatar of an insecure self-conscious teenage girl. The dichotomy of the characters real-life personalities always being at odds with their avatars new physical and mental attributes provides much of the comedy. Not all of it lands, but enough does and they don’t overdo it.
Once we enter the world of Jumanji the characters attempt to figure out how the “game” works. This leads to some humorous video game style exposition. I found this method of exposition to be unique and interesting. Incorporating NPC’s (Non-playable characters) whose sole purpose is to help players figure out what is going on and how to play the game was a fun and meta way to advance the story. It sort of reminds me of some of the things I enjoyed about 2012’s Wreck-It Ralph.
Then the gang runs into the other player in the game and another star of the film, Nick Jonas. Jonas plays Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough who is the avatar of Zack a teenage boy sucked into the game in 1997 (Jonas uses 1997 lingo frequently. Radical.) and has lived in the jungle for what he claims to be “a few months”. This leads to the biggest missed opportunity of the film. Time apparently moves differently in Jumanji. A few months in Jumanji translates to 20 years in real life. When Zack is told he has been missing 20 years this should have been a major B plot. They do try and add some weight to the situation by showing how deeply affected Zack is by this news, but I feel they could have explored this dynamic a bit further. Especially when it comes to the ending. Which is a bit anticlimactic. Once they all end up working together to escape Jumanji they all are all transported back to their respective timelines and it would appear as though no time has passed. So it sort of ditches the whole being stuck in the game for 20 years angle and instead chooses to allow Zack to live a full and complete life starting from 1997. Also, the main cast seems to be unaffected timeline wise. All of this film took place while they were down in the basement serving their detentions. It would have made for a much more interesting ending if they return to their bodies and find out that in the real world they were gone for a longer period of time. Even just a week or so would have added an interesting dynamic to the pretty flat and standard ending. They do end up meeting up with grown-up Zack (Played by Colin Hanks) and there is a nice little payoff to the quasi-romance Nick Jonas and Jack Black had throughout the film. (Yes you read that correctly.) Alex named his daughter after Bethany who saved his life in the jungle.
The four teenagers all learn valuable life lessons inside the jungle. Fridge leans to appreciate his friend Spencer. Spencer learns to man up and take risks. Bethany learns to care about something other than herself and her popularity, and Martha learns to come out of her shell a bit and open up. While I often find these types of stories to be heavy-handed and snooze-worthy Jumanji manages to keep the gushy feel good stuff to a minimum. It’s there, and it’s obvious but it’s not in your face enough to bring down the movie.
Ultimately I will go ahead and recommend Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle if your into Action comedy that doesn't ever take itself too seriously. I repeat this is not a serious movie. But it is a mildly funny, family-friendly romp that I fully expect anyone who paid for a ticket to at least get their monies worth. Provided they came in with the right expectations.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Vikings in TV
Feb 4, 2018
Somewhat historically accurate (2 more)
Visually Compelling
Gripping drama that keeps you wanting more
One of my favourite shows of all time
Vikings, for the first 3 seasons, tells the story of the rise to power of the legendary Ragnar Lothbrok, though the character himself in reality, despite being written about in sagas and poems from that era, remains a mystery to historians to this day.
In the show, Ragnar Lothbrok is portrayed by Travis Fimmel, who is fantastic in any role he has taken from what I have seen of his work. As Ragnar he excels at portraying many aspects of the character, from a loving father, to a fierce warrior. Though you still believe that he has nothing but the best intentions for his people, as well as himself. He is a somewhat difficult man to read as he may seem selfish at time, and yet his actions help the people around him, whilst other times, his actions may appear to be for the benefit of others, when really it is an act of selfishness. No matter what he does though, he does it well.
However, there is more to this show that just Ragnar Lothbrok. There is his wife, Lagertha, a famous shield maiden portrayed by Katheryn Winnick, who is able to achieve the same talent as Fimmel, by portraying the many sides to the character she plays. She is a loving mother, wife, though sometimes troubled, but at the end of the day, she is a badass. A strong female protagonist with a lot to gain and a lot to lose. Her story unfolds more from season 2 onwards and it is one that keeps you on edge, wanting to know what the future holds for Lagertha. Sadly, we have no seers to tell us what the gods have in store for her, we can only watch in suspense as the events unfold.
Then there are the Sons of Ragnar, who in later seasons, become the pinnacle of the show. The main focus, that will shape the future of what the show will become. All of them are incredible actors who portray their characters to the best they can be. My two favourites, are Bjorn Ironside, portrayed by Alender Ludwig, and Ivar The Boneless, portrayed by Alex Høgh Andersen. Both of these young actors excel in creating the best of their characters. Bjorn being the eldest of Ragnars sons, is the one you may become attached to most as he is there from the very beginning, portrayed at first by the young, Nathan O'Toole. In season 2 however, Bjorn is growing into a tall and strong young man, and this is where Ludwig excels. You believe that he is still young and blind from the world as it truly is, but enough so that you can believe that he is willing to learn more and like his father, wishes to know as much as he can about the world.
Ivar on the other hand, is brilliant for his own reason. Andersen's portrayal is fierce, creepy and brutal. He portrays a young man who is willing to overcome any obstacle including his own disability, to prove himself as a great warrior, and a force to be reckoned with. His constant anger is always on display as well, even when he is happy. You can see just from the expressions on his face, that he has so much going through his mind. So much cunning and so much emotion that he does not show. He is phenomanal in his role.
Though there are many other characters and actors to talk about such as Gustaf Skarsgard, who's brother, Bill, recently became notorious for his role as the new updated remake of Pennywise the Clown in IT (2017), as well as Clive Standen as Rollo, Ragnar's brother who is always dancing between loyalty and betrayal. Every cast member in this show is brilliant in what they have achieved with their characters and you will come to enjoy all of them.
The visuals of the show are stunning, with lots of blood and gore, comes a historically accurate representation of the lives and locations of the Vikings of that era. From visions, to battles, to drama. The visual effects keep you entranced and bring the story to life, which makes this show so incredible in my opinion. The best part, is that with each season and each episode, the story and visuals get better and better and leave you wanting more.
The show overall, is brilliant, and I have watched it many times over from the beginning, and it never gets boring. I love the historical accuracy mixed with fantasy elements and drama, which keep it interesting, but more importantly I how the show makes the audience feel. I have felt saddened, shocked and joyful throughout this show as it brilliantly allows each character to grow and flourish into the best they can be. It leaves you in suspense of what it is to come and when the show ends, I shall be very sad, but I have high hopes that they end the show with as much power as they put in each episode from the very beginning. I will continue to watch this show multiple times with each season as I wait for the next to be released. I am on my third run through of the show whilst waiting for part 2 of season 5. As I said before, it just keeps getting better.
In the show, Ragnar Lothbrok is portrayed by Travis Fimmel, who is fantastic in any role he has taken from what I have seen of his work. As Ragnar he excels at portraying many aspects of the character, from a loving father, to a fierce warrior. Though you still believe that he has nothing but the best intentions for his people, as well as himself. He is a somewhat difficult man to read as he may seem selfish at time, and yet his actions help the people around him, whilst other times, his actions may appear to be for the benefit of others, when really it is an act of selfishness. No matter what he does though, he does it well.
However, there is more to this show that just Ragnar Lothbrok. There is his wife, Lagertha, a famous shield maiden portrayed by Katheryn Winnick, who is able to achieve the same talent as Fimmel, by portraying the many sides to the character she plays. She is a loving mother, wife, though sometimes troubled, but at the end of the day, she is a badass. A strong female protagonist with a lot to gain and a lot to lose. Her story unfolds more from season 2 onwards and it is one that keeps you on edge, wanting to know what the future holds for Lagertha. Sadly, we have no seers to tell us what the gods have in store for her, we can only watch in suspense as the events unfold.
Then there are the Sons of Ragnar, who in later seasons, become the pinnacle of the show. The main focus, that will shape the future of what the show will become. All of them are incredible actors who portray their characters to the best they can be. My two favourites, are Bjorn Ironside, portrayed by Alender Ludwig, and Ivar The Boneless, portrayed by Alex Høgh Andersen. Both of these young actors excel in creating the best of their characters. Bjorn being the eldest of Ragnars sons, is the one you may become attached to most as he is there from the very beginning, portrayed at first by the young, Nathan O'Toole. In season 2 however, Bjorn is growing into a tall and strong young man, and this is where Ludwig excels. You believe that he is still young and blind from the world as it truly is, but enough so that you can believe that he is willing to learn more and like his father, wishes to know as much as he can about the world.
Ivar on the other hand, is brilliant for his own reason. Andersen's portrayal is fierce, creepy and brutal. He portrays a young man who is willing to overcome any obstacle including his own disability, to prove himself as a great warrior, and a force to be reckoned with. His constant anger is always on display as well, even when he is happy. You can see just from the expressions on his face, that he has so much going through his mind. So much cunning and so much emotion that he does not show. He is phenomanal in his role.
Though there are many other characters and actors to talk about such as Gustaf Skarsgard, who's brother, Bill, recently became notorious for his role as the new updated remake of Pennywise the Clown in IT (2017), as well as Clive Standen as Rollo, Ragnar's brother who is always dancing between loyalty and betrayal. Every cast member in this show is brilliant in what they have achieved with their characters and you will come to enjoy all of them.
The visuals of the show are stunning, with lots of blood and gore, comes a historically accurate representation of the lives and locations of the Vikings of that era. From visions, to battles, to drama. The visual effects keep you entranced and bring the story to life, which makes this show so incredible in my opinion. The best part, is that with each season and each episode, the story and visuals get better and better and leave you wanting more.
The show overall, is brilliant, and I have watched it many times over from the beginning, and it never gets boring. I love the historical accuracy mixed with fantasy elements and drama, which keep it interesting, but more importantly I how the show makes the audience feel. I have felt saddened, shocked and joyful throughout this show as it brilliantly allows each character to grow and flourish into the best they can be. It leaves you in suspense of what it is to come and when the show ends, I shall be very sad, but I have high hopes that they end the show with as much power as they put in each episode from the very beginning. I will continue to watch this show multiple times with each season as I wait for the next to be released. I am on my third run through of the show whilst waiting for part 2 of season 5. As I said before, it just keeps getting better.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror - Season 4 in TV
Mar 3, 2020
USS Callister - 7.5
A fascinatingly geeky episode, all else aside. Not only are there references to almost every significant sci-fi meme (in the true sociological sense of the word) you can think of, but there are also many links to past and even future Black Mirror episodes. It really is a spot the clever touch piece of the ensemble. Deceptively colourful and lively, this is a dark idea – taking identity theft to the next level and using stolen DNA to replicate and then trap a person in a virtual world where you are god. Jesse Plemons takes on two personas and has never been seen to such effect as in this rare lead role for him. Nominated for 8 Emmys and winning 4, the start to season four in late 2017 was a strong one, and a real indicator that the Universe of Black Mirror is all intrinsically linked. As I say, geek heaven! Points for spotting Kirsten Dunst in an unspoken cameo…
Arkangel - 6
Notable for the first big guest director credit of one Jodie Foster. This one moves from creepy idea to hard to swallow nonsense very quickly. Returning to the idea of brain implants and using the eyes of a person as a recorder than can be manipulated, the idea of aparent using such tech to protect a child is fine on the surface. But when you go deeper, it is impossible to imagine a parent stupid enough not to see the drawbacks and dangers of it, and fantastical to imagine the child not questioning it as they get older. Apart from a memorable moment of violence that works well in the context of the story, this episode largely doesn’t really work.
Crocodile - 7
An almost unrecognisable Andrea Riseborough is the best thing about this bleak thriller type episode, often compared to Scandi-dramas like The Bridge. It starts with a haunting accidental death and cover up scenario, progressing to a breakdown manifested in two very different ways. Once again, the tech on display is a machine not unlike the Voight-Kampf of Blade Runner, which can translate memory into images. The intrigue and tension are great, and when things really kick off, we find ourselves yelling “just stop” at our screens! Trouble is, the final twist undermines it all, by crossing the line of irony and into comedy. Memorable, but not in the top ten for me.
Hang the DJ - 8.5
Now, this one I really like! The unlikely chemistry of Joe Cole and Georgina Campbell, as two guinea pigs using an intense dating app in some vague dystopia, hits the right tone from the start and keeps you gripped. The basic idea being that the app tells you how long a couple can be together, before parting, whether they want to or not. The promise of the system being that in the end there is a 99.8% chance of finding your “perfect” partner. The empathy for the leads is huge by the time it comes to the inevitable conclusion that they must rebel to escape their fate and be together. What happens next: the simplicity, yet detail of the twist is absolute genius! Leaving you with a wry smile and a very strong lasting impression. Artistically, not he strongest; in terms of pure writing, one of the very best.
Metalhead - 7
Perhaps unfairly, this episode, shot in gorgeous black and white, is the lowest rated of all Black Mirror episodes on IMDb. David Slade, the man responsible for films such as Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night directs, and it is apparent this is going to be a minimal mood piece, with standard psychological horror elements. The most obvious comparison is The Terminator, but there is more going on than that. What I like about it is the ambiguity. How we got to this place and where “home” is and who is left there, are all left to our imagination, as we watch Maxine Peake struggle to survive against a machine that will not stop. I think many reject it out of hand because it is too vague and has little in the way of a clever twist. But, as a character study it works fine. Shorter than most, at 41 minutes, perhaps even that is a push, given the simple idea, which does have short film vibes pouring out of it. I can’t say I don’t like it though…
Black Museum - 8
A fitting end to season four was the trick of paying homage to old anthology horror movies of the 70s, where artifacts that link to dark stories are collected in one place and re-told by a perhaps sinister narrator. There are plenty of clever nods to recognisable props and images from earlier episodes, as well as new stuff that may have future significance, that,even more than USS Callister, this episode is basically one big Easter egg. Letitia Wright, best known from her role in Black Panther, to date, shows star quality in a tricky part that basically requires her to listen and wait patiently until the satisfying pay-off. The three linking tales of a doctor who becomes addicted to pain via an empathy implant; a dead mother whose soul is trapped in a childs toy forever; and a murderer condemned to relive his execution over and over for the gratification of paying customers – are all captivating within themselves, and fit into the macabre tongue in cheek vibe well. Thankfully, the climax does make it all gel and make sense, and we leave the season on a high, reflecting our own sense of “justice”.
A fascinatingly geeky episode, all else aside. Not only are there references to almost every significant sci-fi meme (in the true sociological sense of the word) you can think of, but there are also many links to past and even future Black Mirror episodes. It really is a spot the clever touch piece of the ensemble. Deceptively colourful and lively, this is a dark idea – taking identity theft to the next level and using stolen DNA to replicate and then trap a person in a virtual world where you are god. Jesse Plemons takes on two personas and has never been seen to such effect as in this rare lead role for him. Nominated for 8 Emmys and winning 4, the start to season four in late 2017 was a strong one, and a real indicator that the Universe of Black Mirror is all intrinsically linked. As I say, geek heaven! Points for spotting Kirsten Dunst in an unspoken cameo…
Arkangel - 6
Notable for the first big guest director credit of one Jodie Foster. This one moves from creepy idea to hard to swallow nonsense very quickly. Returning to the idea of brain implants and using the eyes of a person as a recorder than can be manipulated, the idea of aparent using such tech to protect a child is fine on the surface. But when you go deeper, it is impossible to imagine a parent stupid enough not to see the drawbacks and dangers of it, and fantastical to imagine the child not questioning it as they get older. Apart from a memorable moment of violence that works well in the context of the story, this episode largely doesn’t really work.
Crocodile - 7
An almost unrecognisable Andrea Riseborough is the best thing about this bleak thriller type episode, often compared to Scandi-dramas like The Bridge. It starts with a haunting accidental death and cover up scenario, progressing to a breakdown manifested in two very different ways. Once again, the tech on display is a machine not unlike the Voight-Kampf of Blade Runner, which can translate memory into images. The intrigue and tension are great, and when things really kick off, we find ourselves yelling “just stop” at our screens! Trouble is, the final twist undermines it all, by crossing the line of irony and into comedy. Memorable, but not in the top ten for me.
Hang the DJ - 8.5
Now, this one I really like! The unlikely chemistry of Joe Cole and Georgina Campbell, as two guinea pigs using an intense dating app in some vague dystopia, hits the right tone from the start and keeps you gripped. The basic idea being that the app tells you how long a couple can be together, before parting, whether they want to or not. The promise of the system being that in the end there is a 99.8% chance of finding your “perfect” partner. The empathy for the leads is huge by the time it comes to the inevitable conclusion that they must rebel to escape their fate and be together. What happens next: the simplicity, yet detail of the twist is absolute genius! Leaving you with a wry smile and a very strong lasting impression. Artistically, not he strongest; in terms of pure writing, one of the very best.
Metalhead - 7
Perhaps unfairly, this episode, shot in gorgeous black and white, is the lowest rated of all Black Mirror episodes on IMDb. David Slade, the man responsible for films such as Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night directs, and it is apparent this is going to be a minimal mood piece, with standard psychological horror elements. The most obvious comparison is The Terminator, but there is more going on than that. What I like about it is the ambiguity. How we got to this place and where “home” is and who is left there, are all left to our imagination, as we watch Maxine Peake struggle to survive against a machine that will not stop. I think many reject it out of hand because it is too vague and has little in the way of a clever twist. But, as a character study it works fine. Shorter than most, at 41 minutes, perhaps even that is a push, given the simple idea, which does have short film vibes pouring out of it. I can’t say I don’t like it though…
Black Museum - 8
A fitting end to season four was the trick of paying homage to old anthology horror movies of the 70s, where artifacts that link to dark stories are collected in one place and re-told by a perhaps sinister narrator. There are plenty of clever nods to recognisable props and images from earlier episodes, as well as new stuff that may have future significance, that,even more than USS Callister, this episode is basically one big Easter egg. Letitia Wright, best known from her role in Black Panther, to date, shows star quality in a tricky part that basically requires her to listen and wait patiently until the satisfying pay-off. The three linking tales of a doctor who becomes addicted to pain via an empathy implant; a dead mother whose soul is trapped in a childs toy forever; and a murderer condemned to relive his execution over and over for the gratification of paying customers – are all captivating within themselves, and fit into the macabre tongue in cheek vibe well. Thankfully, the climax does make it all gel and make sense, and we leave the season on a high, reflecting our own sense of “justice”.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Light of My Life (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
It is difficult to talk about Casey Affleck in a positive light as a movie-maker without mentioning the heightened media storm that surrounded him in 2017, at the time of #metoo and his own moment of personal glory in winning the Best Actor Oscar for his excellent performance in Manchester By the Sea. The Oscar was deserved, as was the criticism. The latter affecting the sweetness of the former entirely, and perhaps explaining why a recent Academy Award winner would be so quiet for the next 3 years.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Midsommar (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
In 2017 the stale market of “horror” thrillers got a royal shake-up when Jordan Peele made Get Out. All of a sudden it seemed possible again to use the tired genre, that had been relying on gore and jump shocks alone for at least two decades, as a palette for intelligent social commentary and some seriously artistic flourishes. The following year, Ari Aster came out of nowhere with a debut feature that impressed everyone for it’s originality and bravado in this new “art-horror” model – the devisive yet always interesting Hereditary, a film that confused me on first watch, but gave me faith that I could be unnerved again, it’s secret being that you couldn’t compare it to anything since the golden days of the 70s.
So, when I saw the trailer for Midsommar in 2019 and realised it was the same director, it went straight to the top of my must see list. Add to the appeal the significant lure of the lead actress and main character, the extremely promising Florence Pugh, who blew me away for her raw ability in Lady Macbeth, and beguiled me even more in every minute of Chan-Wook Park’s superlative espionage mini-series The Little Drummer Girl, and I knew this was something I didn’t want to miss. Sometimes it only takes two projects on a CV to elevate a future star from obscurity to A-list potential. In Pugh I had already seen enough range, charisma and depth to suspect she was one of those special few. By the end of Midsommar I was convinced of it!
Plot wise, all you need to know going in cold is that Dani (Pugh) racked with grief following early scenes is dragged to Sweden to participate in the Midsommar celebrations of a small isolated community, as her relationship with boyfriend Christian is very much on the rocks and she is in need of some catharsis and release. At first the Idyllic setting, bathed in sunlight you can almost feel, seems refreshing and clean. The whites, yellows and blues of the images are so crisp you can imagine every smell and texture, and you find yourself smiling, despite the fact a creeping unease and sinister secret is already infiltrating the calm in wonderfully subtle ways.
Needless to say it goes to some very dark and strange places. So much so I gasped out loud twice and stood up from my seat involuntarily on one particularly disturbing moment. To try and explain how that unfolds and comes to be is both impossible and would need some big time spoilers, so I won’t do that. It’s enough to say that where you are emotionally at the end of this filmic experience is very, very far from where you started. Much in the same way as Hereditary, you feel you have been dragged by the hair on a very uncomfortable journey that is both strangely unsatisfying, confusing and upsetting; you can’t say you “liked” either film as much as admitting you can’t stop thinking about them and need to see them again to absorb the detail, if indeed you can bear that.
As of writing this I haven’t gone back and watched this again – I’m genuinely wary of putting myself through it a second time! But, I have gone back to Hereditary and appreciated it much more knowing the ending already, and seeing the detail that is there from the beginning, that makes it all make sense in a way it doesn’t first time around. Midsommar, I sense, is the same, in that there has been so much attention to the build up and background that you will see and hear relevant clues to the mystery much more the more times you watch it. What they are wearing, images on walls and seemingly insignificant things the camera picks up on create a tapestry of loose threads that can be woven together into deeper meaning if that is what you want to do.
Without doing that it may seem like a bewildering entity, deliberately odd for the sake of it, and as such it could put anyone off. At 2 hours and 28 minutes it is a bit of a stretch, and the last half hour, once it descends into the complete madness suggested earlier, perhaps doesn’t live up to the promises it makes. Also, despite Pugh being a mesmeric presence from start to finish, the supporting cast can’t quite go with her on the same level. Even the talented Will Poulter seems burdened by a less than three dimensional character, underwritten as are many in a script that focuses so much on Dani that everything else suffers.
My overall impression of it as a film is that it falls short of greatness by a narrow margin, but comes very close at times to genuine genius. It is the promise of Aster as a filmmaker that excites me most, even if this is not the film it could have been with a little more experience, maturity and, perhaps, budget. It is his Bottle Rocket, or Hard Eight, when you suspect he will have a Grand Budapest Hotel, or a There Will Be Blood in him at some point down the line.
In conclusion, I can’t emphasise enough how much I was drawn to every moment of what Florence Pugh was doing. Be wary of the film if a casual viewing experience is what you want, because it may infuriate you, and compel you even to switch it off, if you are not totally ready to meet it where it wants to take you. But, watch it for Pugh and see what a rare talent she is bringing to cinema into the 2020s. A very exciting prospect indeed.
So, when I saw the trailer for Midsommar in 2019 and realised it was the same director, it went straight to the top of my must see list. Add to the appeal the significant lure of the lead actress and main character, the extremely promising Florence Pugh, who blew me away for her raw ability in Lady Macbeth, and beguiled me even more in every minute of Chan-Wook Park’s superlative espionage mini-series The Little Drummer Girl, and I knew this was something I didn’t want to miss. Sometimes it only takes two projects on a CV to elevate a future star from obscurity to A-list potential. In Pugh I had already seen enough range, charisma and depth to suspect she was one of those special few. By the end of Midsommar I was convinced of it!
Plot wise, all you need to know going in cold is that Dani (Pugh) racked with grief following early scenes is dragged to Sweden to participate in the Midsommar celebrations of a small isolated community, as her relationship with boyfriend Christian is very much on the rocks and she is in need of some catharsis and release. At first the Idyllic setting, bathed in sunlight you can almost feel, seems refreshing and clean. The whites, yellows and blues of the images are so crisp you can imagine every smell and texture, and you find yourself smiling, despite the fact a creeping unease and sinister secret is already infiltrating the calm in wonderfully subtle ways.
Needless to say it goes to some very dark and strange places. So much so I gasped out loud twice and stood up from my seat involuntarily on one particularly disturbing moment. To try and explain how that unfolds and comes to be is both impossible and would need some big time spoilers, so I won’t do that. It’s enough to say that where you are emotionally at the end of this filmic experience is very, very far from where you started. Much in the same way as Hereditary, you feel you have been dragged by the hair on a very uncomfortable journey that is both strangely unsatisfying, confusing and upsetting; you can’t say you “liked” either film as much as admitting you can’t stop thinking about them and need to see them again to absorb the detail, if indeed you can bear that.
As of writing this I haven’t gone back and watched this again – I’m genuinely wary of putting myself through it a second time! But, I have gone back to Hereditary and appreciated it much more knowing the ending already, and seeing the detail that is there from the beginning, that makes it all make sense in a way it doesn’t first time around. Midsommar, I sense, is the same, in that there has been so much attention to the build up and background that you will see and hear relevant clues to the mystery much more the more times you watch it. What they are wearing, images on walls and seemingly insignificant things the camera picks up on create a tapestry of loose threads that can be woven together into deeper meaning if that is what you want to do.
Without doing that it may seem like a bewildering entity, deliberately odd for the sake of it, and as such it could put anyone off. At 2 hours and 28 minutes it is a bit of a stretch, and the last half hour, once it descends into the complete madness suggested earlier, perhaps doesn’t live up to the promises it makes. Also, despite Pugh being a mesmeric presence from start to finish, the supporting cast can’t quite go with her on the same level. Even the talented Will Poulter seems burdened by a less than three dimensional character, underwritten as are many in a script that focuses so much on Dani that everything else suffers.
My overall impression of it as a film is that it falls short of greatness by a narrow margin, but comes very close at times to genuine genius. It is the promise of Aster as a filmmaker that excites me most, even if this is not the film it could have been with a little more experience, maturity and, perhaps, budget. It is his Bottle Rocket, or Hard Eight, when you suspect he will have a Grand Budapest Hotel, or a There Will Be Blood in him at some point down the line.
In conclusion, I can’t emphasise enough how much I was drawn to every moment of what Florence Pugh was doing. Be wary of the film if a casual viewing experience is what you want, because it may infuriate you, and compel you even to switch it off, if you are not totally ready to meet it where it wants to take you. But, watch it for Pugh and see what a rare talent she is bringing to cinema into the 2020s. A very exciting prospect indeed.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Why is everyone not raving about this movie?
Imagine a ménage à trois of Agatha Christie, Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino at the Overlook Hotel with a banging 60’s soundtrack. Got that unpleasant vision in your mind? Good! You’re halfway there to getting the feel of “Bad Times at the El Royale”. And they really are bad times!
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
The Plot
It’s 1969 and an oddball set of characters arrive at the faded glory of the El Royale hotel at Lake Tahoe: “a bi-state establishment” straddling the Nevada/California border: so describes the manager-cum-bellhop-cum-bartender-cum-cleaner Miles Miller (Lewis Pullman, soon to appear as Maverick in the “Top Gun” sequel). The motley crew include Laramie Seymour Sullivan, a vacuum cleaner salesman (Jon Hamm); Father Daniel Flynn, an oddly-acting priest (Jeff Bridges); Darlene Sweet, a struggling Motown-style singer (Cynthia Erivo); and Emily Summerspring, a rude and abrupt hippy-chick with attitude (Dakota Johnson). But noone is quite who they seem and their twisted and convoluted lives combine in a memorable night of surprise and violence at the El Royale.
The turns
I’ve often expressed my admiration for the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards and their category of “Best Ensemble Cast”: at a time when there are controversial suggestions of additions to the Oscars, this is one I would like to see (along with a “Best Stunt Team” award that I’ve previously lobbied for). And here is my second serious candidate for the “Best Ensemble Cast” Oscar in 2018, my first being “Three Billboards in Ebbing, Missouri” (which in their books would count as 2017 anyway!) Everyone really works hard on this film and the larger than life characters suck you into the story because of the quality and intensity of their performances.
Out in front of the pack are the simply brilliant Jeff Bridges and Cynthia Erivo, an actress new to me who has a great voice and made a big impression. Scenes between the pair are just electric. Jon Hamm is as quirkily great as ever and Dakota “not Fanning” Johnson is far better in this film than any recent stuff I’ve seen her in. Another standout was another newcomer to me – young Cailee Spaeny as Rose, looking for all the world in some scenes like a young Carey Mulligan. While we’re on lookalikes, Lewis Pullman (best known to me for “Battle of the Sexes“) looks very like Tom Holland in some scenes.
The Review
I found this film to be just enormously entertaining. It is very Tarantino-esque in its claustrophobic nature (compare it with “The Hateful 8” in that respect) and with its quirky episodic flash cards (compare with “Pulp Fiction” or “Kill Bill”) but for me was much more appetising since – although very violent – it never stooped to the queasy “blow your face off” excesses of Tarantino, that I personally find distasteful. Where it apes Hitchcock is in its intricate plotting: the story regularly throws you off-balance with some genuinely surprising twists and turns that you never see coming. And the interesting time-splicing and flashbacks also keep you on your mental toes. To say any more or to give any examples would be a spoilerish crime, so I will refrain. This is a dish best served cold (so avoid the trailer if you can).
The film has a marvellous sense of place and time and key to establishing that is some superb set design; some brilliant costumes; and – most of all – an exquisitely chosen song catalogue. The great Michael Giacchino is behind the music, and he does a truly fabulous job, not just with the song selection but also with the background music. This never seems to intrude noticeably until the end titles, when you realise it’s been insistently working on you all the time: the best sort of soundtrack.
There are some films that make you marvel how someone sat at a keyboard and got a screenplay down on paper so satisfyingly. While it could be accused of aping Tarantino somewhat, for me this is still one such film. The writer/director Drew Goddard has come from the J.J. Abrams stable of “Alias” and “Lost”, and has previously written the great screenplays for films including “Cloverfield”, “The Martian” and “World War Z“. His only previous directorial feature was “The Cabin in the Woods” (which I’ve not seen), but after this he is definitely on my movie radar: his next film will be “X-force”: a “Deadpool 2” follow-on with Ryan Reynolds, Josh Brolin and Zazie Beetz, and I can’t wait to see that.
If there’s a criticism it’s that at 141 minutes its a tad long. It never to me felt like a film that long, such was the entertainment value, but while I just loved the development of character just a few of the scenes felt a little leisurely and superfluous. Trim 10 minutes off the running time – no more – and it might have felt tighter still.
I didn’t mention one star name in “The Turns” section, and that’s Chris Hemsworth. He actually does a great job in his demanding Messianic role of Billy Lee, but I just had trouble equating the “Thor” star as being “all kinds of bad”: this felt like a slight misstep in the casting to me.
Summary
This film is without a doubt going to storm into my Top 10 for the year. It’s an entertaining delight, full of twists, turns, deliciously wordy dialogue and a satisfyingly open ending. I can’t believe this film hasn’t been top billing in multiplexes up and down the country for WEEKS on end. If you get the chance, my advice would be to seek this out before it disappears.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The most fun you can have with Jack Black’s penis.
In 1995, Joe Johnston (“The Rocketeer”, “Captain America: The First Avenger”) directed “Jumanji” – a quirky, fantastical and dark film starring the late, great Robin Williams that got a rough critical reception at the time of release, but was embraced by the public and has gone on to be a modern classic. So when it was announced that a sequel was in the works 22 years later, my first reaction was “Oh no… is nothing sacred?”. It’s fair to say that I went into this flick with extremely low expectations.
But I have to say that – given this low base – I was pleasantly surprised. It’s actually quite a fun fantasy film that I predict that older kids will adore.
Seriously kick-ass. Karen Gillan – or rather one of her stunt doubles – gets hands… er… feet on with an aggressive level-character.
Initially set (neatly) in 1995, a teen – Alex (Nick Jonas, of the Jonas Brothers) unearths the board game Jumanji where it ended up buried in beach-sand at the end of the last film. “Who plays board games any more?” he scoffs, which the game hears and morphs into a game cartridge. Cheesy? Yes, but no more crazy than the goings on of the first film. Back in 2017, four high-school teens – geeky Spencer (Alex Wolff, “Patriot’s Day“); sports-jock Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain); self-obsessed beauty Bethany (Madison Iseman); and self-conscious, nerdy and shy Martha (Morgan Turner) – find the game and are sucked into it, having to complete all the game levels before they can escape.
Bethany (Madison Iseman) wishing she had her phone out for a selfie of this.
But they are not themselves in the game; they adopt the Avatars they chose to play: Dr Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“); Moose Finbar (Kevin Hart, “Get Hard“); Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan, “Dr Who”, “The Circle“; “Guardians of the Galaxy“); and Professor Shelly Oberon (Jack Black, “Sex Tape“, “Kong”). Can they combine their respective game talents – and suppress the human mental baggage they brought with them – to escape the game?
Avatars all. Kevin Hart, Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan and Jack Black.
There was a really dark time-travelling angle to the storyline of the original film – the traumatic start of Disney’s “Flight of the Navigator” was perhaps also borrowed from the concept in the book by Chris Van Allsburg. An attempt is made to recreate this in the sequel. I felt the first film rather pulled its punches though in favour of a Hollywood happy ending: will this be the case this time?
The film delivers laughs, but in a rather inconsistent fashion – it is mostly smile-worthy rather than laugh-out-loud funny. Much fun is had with the sex change of Bethany’s character, with Jack Black’s member featuring – erm – prominently. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, like a game of Top Trumps, and this also entertains. But the most humour derives from the “three lives and it’s game over” device giving the opportunity for various grisly ends, often relating to the above referenced weaknesses.
A weakness for cake… something many of us have, but not quite to this extent.
Given the cast that’s been signed up, the acting is not exactly first rate although Karen Gillan shines as the brightest star. But “it’s not bloody Shakespeare” so ham-acting is not that much of a problem and the cast all have fun with their roles. Dwayne Johnson in particular gets to play out of character as the ‘nerd within the hunk’, and his “smouldering look” skill – arched eyebrow and all – is hilarious. Rhys Darby, looking so much like Hugh Jackman that I had to do several double takes, also turns up as an English game-guide in a Land Rover, and Bobby Cannavale (“Ant Man“) is Van Pelt, the villain of the piece.
There has been much controversy over Karen Gillan’s child-sized outfit. But she is clearly a parallel to the well-endowed Lara Croft, and young male teens didn’t play that game for the jungle scenery! She is meant to be a hot and sexy video game character, and man – does she deliver! Gillan is not just hot in the film: she is #lavahot. This makes her comic attempts at flirting lessons (as the internally conflicted Martha) especially funny. Hats off to her stunt doubles as well, for some awe-inspiring martial arts fight scenes.
Seeing treble. Karen Gillan (centre) with her talented stunt doubles Joanna Bennett and Jahnel Curfman.
Fans of “Lost” will delight in the Jumanji scenery, surely one of the most over-used film locations in Hawaii if not the world!
Where the film gets bogged down is in too much cod-faced philosophizing over the teenager’s “journeys”. This is laid on in such a clunky manner in the early (slow!) scenes that the script could have been significantly tightened up. And as I said above the script, written (rather obviously) by a raft of writers, could have been so much funnier. Most of the humour comes from visually seeing what’s happening: not from the dialogue.
Directed by Jake Kasdan (son of director and Star Wars/Raiders screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan) it’s really not half as bad as it could have been and certainly not as bad as I feared: I would gladly watch it again. For it’s target audience, which is probably kids aged 10 to 14, I think they will love it. And, unlike many holiday films, the parents won’t be totally bored either (especially the Dads, for the obvious misogynistic reasons outlined above!).
But I have to say that – given this low base – I was pleasantly surprised. It’s actually quite a fun fantasy film that I predict that older kids will adore.
Seriously kick-ass. Karen Gillan – or rather one of her stunt doubles – gets hands… er… feet on with an aggressive level-character.
Initially set (neatly) in 1995, a teen – Alex (Nick Jonas, of the Jonas Brothers) unearths the board game Jumanji where it ended up buried in beach-sand at the end of the last film. “Who plays board games any more?” he scoffs, which the game hears and morphs into a game cartridge. Cheesy? Yes, but no more crazy than the goings on of the first film. Back in 2017, four high-school teens – geeky Spencer (Alex Wolff, “Patriot’s Day“); sports-jock Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain); self-obsessed beauty Bethany (Madison Iseman); and self-conscious, nerdy and shy Martha (Morgan Turner) – find the game and are sucked into it, having to complete all the game levels before they can escape.
Bethany (Madison Iseman) wishing she had her phone out for a selfie of this.
But they are not themselves in the game; they adopt the Avatars they chose to play: Dr Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“); Moose Finbar (Kevin Hart, “Get Hard“); Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan, “Dr Who”, “The Circle“; “Guardians of the Galaxy“); and Professor Shelly Oberon (Jack Black, “Sex Tape“, “Kong”). Can they combine their respective game talents – and suppress the human mental baggage they brought with them – to escape the game?
Avatars all. Kevin Hart, Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan and Jack Black.
There was a really dark time-travelling angle to the storyline of the original film – the traumatic start of Disney’s “Flight of the Navigator” was perhaps also borrowed from the concept in the book by Chris Van Allsburg. An attempt is made to recreate this in the sequel. I felt the first film rather pulled its punches though in favour of a Hollywood happy ending: will this be the case this time?
The film delivers laughs, but in a rather inconsistent fashion – it is mostly smile-worthy rather than laugh-out-loud funny. Much fun is had with the sex change of Bethany’s character, with Jack Black’s member featuring – erm – prominently. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, like a game of Top Trumps, and this also entertains. But the most humour derives from the “three lives and it’s game over” device giving the opportunity for various grisly ends, often relating to the above referenced weaknesses.
A weakness for cake… something many of us have, but not quite to this extent.
Given the cast that’s been signed up, the acting is not exactly first rate although Karen Gillan shines as the brightest star. But “it’s not bloody Shakespeare” so ham-acting is not that much of a problem and the cast all have fun with their roles. Dwayne Johnson in particular gets to play out of character as the ‘nerd within the hunk’, and his “smouldering look” skill – arched eyebrow and all – is hilarious. Rhys Darby, looking so much like Hugh Jackman that I had to do several double takes, also turns up as an English game-guide in a Land Rover, and Bobby Cannavale (“Ant Man“) is Van Pelt, the villain of the piece.
There has been much controversy over Karen Gillan’s child-sized outfit. But she is clearly a parallel to the well-endowed Lara Croft, and young male teens didn’t play that game for the jungle scenery! She is meant to be a hot and sexy video game character, and man – does she deliver! Gillan is not just hot in the film: she is #lavahot. This makes her comic attempts at flirting lessons (as the internally conflicted Martha) especially funny. Hats off to her stunt doubles as well, for some awe-inspiring martial arts fight scenes.
Seeing treble. Karen Gillan (centre) with her talented stunt doubles Joanna Bennett and Jahnel Curfman.
Fans of “Lost” will delight in the Jumanji scenery, surely one of the most over-used film locations in Hawaii if not the world!
Where the film gets bogged down is in too much cod-faced philosophizing over the teenager’s “journeys”. This is laid on in such a clunky manner in the early (slow!) scenes that the script could have been significantly tightened up. And as I said above the script, written (rather obviously) by a raft of writers, could have been so much funnier. Most of the humour comes from visually seeing what’s happening: not from the dialogue.
Directed by Jake Kasdan (son of director and Star Wars/Raiders screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan) it’s really not half as bad as it could have been and certainly not as bad as I feared: I would gladly watch it again. For it’s target audience, which is probably kids aged 10 to 14, I think they will love it. And, unlike many holiday films, the parents won’t be totally bored either (especially the Dads, for the obvious misogynistic reasons outlined above!).
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Oct 4, 2017
The cast are great (1 more)
Good tonal balance of horror and comedy
Sloppy technical elements (1 more)
Predictable jumpscares
Time To Float!
Contains spoilers, click to show
The 2017 remake of IT has been highly anticipated by Stephen King fans around the world and being a huge fan of King myself and growing up reading his stuff meant I was looking forward to seeing this. I also loved the original 1990 version when I was younger, so I was really hoping that this wouldn’t suck. Spoilers are going to follow for anyone that cares.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.
Let’s go through what I liked first of all. The movie opens with the tragic and brutal death of Georgie Denborough. Just like the book, he follows his paper sailboat down a storm drain, where he first encounters IT. This first appearance of Bill Skarsgard as Pennywise sets the tone for the rest of the movie, unflinching and horrifying. I felt that this intro was extremely effective in setting up what the audience could expect from this adaption, both tonally and visually.
I thought that the child actors in the movie where phenomenal, much better than I had anticipated. They all do a great job with the material they are given and each manage to bring some range to their roles. I liked the visuals for the most part and appreciated the use of mostly practical effects, my highlights being the headless burning boy in the library and when Pennywise’s entire head opens up to consume Beverly.
I enjoyed the fact that the movie served as both a coming of age story and as a horror movie. Stranger Things was clearly inspired by the original IT and this version is clearly inspired by Stanger Things, which was nice to see as a fan of both series. I liked how the movie was about kids, but dealt with adult themes in a mature manner. I also admire how the movie worked in a fair amount of comedic moments whilst still remaining frightening. Another thing that I appreciated was the few moments of subtle creepyness that the film sprinkled throughout, such as the kids TV show that was heard in the background talking about how ‘you should dance along with the clown,’ and encouraging you to be violent etc, I thought that this was a really nice touch. Also, during the library scene where Ben is flipping through the history book, I think IT took the form of the librarian, as the librarian is really creepily staring at Ben from the background of the scene, which really freaked me out when I noticed it. I also liked how some of the jumpscares worked, but unfortunately not all of them did.
Now onto what I didn’t like; my biggest issue with this movie is how formulaic it ends up feeling by around the halfway mark. With each new member of the losers club we are introduced to, we find out what the kid is scared of, then IT appears to them as the aforementioned fear, then we get a jumpscare and the scene cuts away, the next kid is introduced and the same thing happens again. This occurs repeatedly about eight times and by the fifth or sixth time it isn’t scary any longer. The worst thing that a horror movie can be is to become predictable and I’m sorry to say that this is what happens here. It ends up feeling like a checklist:
1. A child is introduced into the movie. Check
2. Some exposition is given for why they are scared of a certain thing. Check
3. IT takes the form of said fear and scares the kid. Check
4. Jumpscare happens and we abruptly cut to the next scene. Check
5. Rinse and repeat.
Some of the jumpscares do work though. Although the jumpscare during the projector screen was very obviously telegraphed, the fact that Pennywise was so huge in that scene took me by surprise, which was a nice touch. Also the scene I mentioned earlier with the headless boy in the library was well structured in the sense that once the boy was chasing Ben through the library you thought you had seen the scare, but when Pennywise leapt out from nowhere it was a genuine surprise.
The sound design is another element of the movie that I had a love/hate relationship with. For me, good sound design is essential to any worthwhile horror movie. I thought that the score used in the film was fantastic; the varied pieces perfectly complemented the tone of each scene they were used in. I also thought that some of the sound effects were well implemented in places. At other points though, the audio just annoyed me. The most egregious example of this was after Beverly smacked her dad across the head and IT appears behind her and grabs her. The sound that occurs here is ear piercingly loud, to the point that it was uncomfortable. It’s not scary, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just obnoxiously loud. It also comes across as lazy; it’s as if in post production someone decided that that scene wasn’t scary enough, so as a quick fix they just put in a painfully loud noise.
Another technical element that bothered me in places was the lighting. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed how a lot of the scenes took place in broad daylight, meaning we could see IT in all of his terrifying glory and in some scenes the lack of lighting added a sense of dread and helped with the film’s tone, but at times it obscured what was going on and shrouded too much of the environment and characters in darkness, to the point where you were having to squint to see what was going on.
Overall, this is a decent adaption. Bill Skarsgard does a fantastic job as Pennywise, the actors playing the kids are all great and the movie does have some effective scares. I was just taken out of it too many times though, due to the predictable nature of the repeated jumpscare sequences and some really poorly implemented technical elements.