Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
This Phoenix Failed To Rise From It's Ashes
Dark Phoenix is a superhero movie based on the Marvel Comics X-Men and the Dark Phoenix Saga story arc. It was produced by 20th Century Fox and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The movie was written and directed by Simon Kinberg. It stars James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, and Sophie Turner.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
20th Century Fox releases Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul. Starring a new cast, as the previous cast ember kids aged out of their roles, it has Alecia Silverstone as Mom, Tom Everett Scott as Dad, Jason Drucker as Wimpy Kid Greg, and Charlie Wright as older brother Roderick.
Headed cross country to their MeeMaw’s 90th birthday, it’s a 4-day haul to Indiana, and Mom has banned all electronic devices.
At least from an adult perspective, I can understand the premise, seeing as the kids are always up to their ears in iPads and Minecraft these days, and having a “conversation” can be like pulling teeth. However, again from an adult perspective, this movie might have been better if the characters HAD been up to their ears in iPads and Minecraft for the trip.
There was lots of bathroom humor, which did seem to pull some laughs from my 8-year-old son, although maybe not as many as might have been expected (some of it, thankfully, was still over his head), but just had me shaking my head and wondering what has happened to good clean humor?
Greg’s main goal throughout the Long Haul is trying to erase or at least overcome his accidental internet sensationalism caught when he is filmed freaking out over a diaper he finds while playing in a ball-pit. He continues to try to re-route the family trip in order to get himself into a video with (what he sees as) a “famous” gamer who goes by Mac Digby, who will be at a convention in Indiana “only two inches away” from MeeMaw’s when looking at the map. His brother Roderick wants to become famous by drumming along in a video game and Greg manages to re-program the GPS in order to direct them closer to the gaming convention.
Along the way, they stop at a county fair and the youngest Heffley, Manny (played by twins Dylan and Wyatt Walters) manages to win an adorable baby piglet, who might honestly have the best role in the film. Who doesn’t like baby pigs?
There are more hijinks along the way in some sort of feud with another family, and in what might be the best part of the film, an homage to Hitchcock’s “Psycho”.
All in all, though, something is seriously lost in translation between the popular Jeff Kinney kids novel that the movie is based on, and this film. Previous installments of the Wimpy Kid movies have not been nearly as unpalatable to me. My son says that he likes this one, but even he says, “the book was better” and he’s only 8.
Between the poop, pee and puke “humor” and the never addressed or resolved lying of the kids and even dad, it’s not a movie I could really appreciate.
Headed cross country to their MeeMaw’s 90th birthday, it’s a 4-day haul to Indiana, and Mom has banned all electronic devices.
At least from an adult perspective, I can understand the premise, seeing as the kids are always up to their ears in iPads and Minecraft these days, and having a “conversation” can be like pulling teeth. However, again from an adult perspective, this movie might have been better if the characters HAD been up to their ears in iPads and Minecraft for the trip.
There was lots of bathroom humor, which did seem to pull some laughs from my 8-year-old son, although maybe not as many as might have been expected (some of it, thankfully, was still over his head), but just had me shaking my head and wondering what has happened to good clean humor?
Greg’s main goal throughout the Long Haul is trying to erase or at least overcome his accidental internet sensationalism caught when he is filmed freaking out over a diaper he finds while playing in a ball-pit. He continues to try to re-route the family trip in order to get himself into a video with (what he sees as) a “famous” gamer who goes by Mac Digby, who will be at a convention in Indiana “only two inches away” from MeeMaw’s when looking at the map. His brother Roderick wants to become famous by drumming along in a video game and Greg manages to re-program the GPS in order to direct them closer to the gaming convention.
Along the way, they stop at a county fair and the youngest Heffley, Manny (played by twins Dylan and Wyatt Walters) manages to win an adorable baby piglet, who might honestly have the best role in the film. Who doesn’t like baby pigs?
There are more hijinks along the way in some sort of feud with another family, and in what might be the best part of the film, an homage to Hitchcock’s “Psycho”.
All in all, though, something is seriously lost in translation between the popular Jeff Kinney kids novel that the movie is based on, and this film. Previous installments of the Wimpy Kid movies have not been nearly as unpalatable to me. My son says that he likes this one, but even he says, “the book was better” and he’s only 8.
Between the poop, pee and puke “humor” and the never addressed or resolved lying of the kids and even dad, it’s not a movie I could really appreciate.
T.I.M.E Stories
8.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
The T.I.M.E Agency protects humanity by preventing temporal faults and paradoxes from threatening...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A Valentine's weekend wonder
It’s hard to believe that one of Marvel’s hottest properties – Deadpool, has taken this long to get to the silver screen. Of course, we can always cast our minds back to 2009’s disastrous X-Men Origins: Wolverine. But for goodness sake, let’s not.
Here, after much petitioning from fans and Reynolds himself, Deadpool finally gets his own origins story, directed by Tim Miller in his debut feature film. But was it worth the wait?
Ryan Reynolds returns as a much more faithful representation of Wade Wilson, a small-time mercenary going through the motions until a shock cancer diagnosis makes him rethink his life – and career prospects, at the cost of losing touch with his love interest, Vanessa, played by the incredibly beautiful Morena Baccarin.
Naturally, a villain in the shape of Ed Skrein’s Ajax, provides the film with its main opposition, though a few other one-dimensional characters appear alongside him every so often. Unfortunately, they make little impact throughout the course of Deadpool and even Skrein suffers next to Reynolds potty-mouthed Wilson.
MV5BMjE3MzI3NzAwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc2Nzc5NzE@._V1__SX1303_SY615_
Brianna Hildebrand, Ryan Reynolds and Stefan Kapicic. Photo by 20th Century Fox.
And ta da! The red-suited antihero is born, much like any other Marvel origins story in fact. However, this is most definitely not your typical superhero flick. From gratuitous sex, violence, swearing and drug references, not to mention the character’s trademark breaking of the fourth wall, it’s all here – and you know what, it’s a breath of fresh air.
Reynolds is absolutely born to play this character and is the best we have seen him in years. Gone is the romantic comedy slop or stereotypical action hero he has portrayed over the last few years and in their place is a witty, incredibly self-aware persona that is one of Marvel’s greatest assets.
Elsewhere, the direction is so confident, and the design choices so slick, it’s difficult to fully comprehend that this is Tim Miller’s first feature film. From a brilliant set of opening credits that poke fun at the narcissism of Hollywood, to some excellent commentary on the superhero genre itself, it’s very cocky indeed and very very funny.
Naturally, not every gag lands on target, but that’s no surprise given that even the best comedies suffer from this. There’s also a lack of development beyond the titular character that hurts the film’s more romantic side, and with Deadpool’s lengthy running time, this could’ve been avoided somewhat.
Other than that, it’s pretty much spot on. Ryan Reynolds looks like he’s having a blast in front of the camera, and Tim Miller looks like he’s having a great time behind it. What about the old Fox and Marvel rivalry chestnut? Well, there’s not even a whiff of it – apart from a sarcastic remark that is.
Overall, Deadpool was a gamble and with Fox’s less than stellar reputation for fashioning decent films out of Marvel property, a huge one at that. But, against all the odds it has paid off spectacularly.
Keep this to yourselves, but it could quite possibly be the best comic-book adaptation to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/13/a-valentines-weekend-wonder-deadpool-review/
Here, after much petitioning from fans and Reynolds himself, Deadpool finally gets his own origins story, directed by Tim Miller in his debut feature film. But was it worth the wait?
Ryan Reynolds returns as a much more faithful representation of Wade Wilson, a small-time mercenary going through the motions until a shock cancer diagnosis makes him rethink his life – and career prospects, at the cost of losing touch with his love interest, Vanessa, played by the incredibly beautiful Morena Baccarin.
Naturally, a villain in the shape of Ed Skrein’s Ajax, provides the film with its main opposition, though a few other one-dimensional characters appear alongside him every so often. Unfortunately, they make little impact throughout the course of Deadpool and even Skrein suffers next to Reynolds potty-mouthed Wilson.
MV5BMjE3MzI3NzAwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc2Nzc5NzE@._V1__SX1303_SY615_
Brianna Hildebrand, Ryan Reynolds and Stefan Kapicic. Photo by 20th Century Fox.
And ta da! The red-suited antihero is born, much like any other Marvel origins story in fact. However, this is most definitely not your typical superhero flick. From gratuitous sex, violence, swearing and drug references, not to mention the character’s trademark breaking of the fourth wall, it’s all here – and you know what, it’s a breath of fresh air.
Reynolds is absolutely born to play this character and is the best we have seen him in years. Gone is the romantic comedy slop or stereotypical action hero he has portrayed over the last few years and in their place is a witty, incredibly self-aware persona that is one of Marvel’s greatest assets.
Elsewhere, the direction is so confident, and the design choices so slick, it’s difficult to fully comprehend that this is Tim Miller’s first feature film. From a brilliant set of opening credits that poke fun at the narcissism of Hollywood, to some excellent commentary on the superhero genre itself, it’s very cocky indeed and very very funny.
Naturally, not every gag lands on target, but that’s no surprise given that even the best comedies suffer from this. There’s also a lack of development beyond the titular character that hurts the film’s more romantic side, and with Deadpool’s lengthy running time, this could’ve been avoided somewhat.
Other than that, it’s pretty much spot on. Ryan Reynolds looks like he’s having a blast in front of the camera, and Tim Miller looks like he’s having a great time behind it. What about the old Fox and Marvel rivalry chestnut? Well, there’s not even a whiff of it – apart from a sarcastic remark that is.
Overall, Deadpool was a gamble and with Fox’s less than stellar reputation for fashioning decent films out of Marvel property, a huge one at that. But, against all the odds it has paid off spectacularly.
Keep this to yourselves, but it could quite possibly be the best comic-book adaptation to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/13/a-valentines-weekend-wonder-deadpool-review/
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Bootlegger in Books
Nov 11, 2019
The Bootlegger is the latest in the series of stories about the detective Isaac Bell from Cussler and Bell collaborator Justin Scott.
Time has moved on for Bell; it is now the early 1920s prohibition is in force and the loss of lives during the First World War has hit the Van Dorn detective agency hard. Faced with routine lawbreaking to smuggle and sell alcohol on the East Coast, and with lucrative government contracts being lost to new federal agencies, the struggle against crime has never been harder. And when Bell has to take over the role of head of the agency he faces a tough job.
Meanwhile the recent war in Europe has spread communist revolutionaries across the world, trying to destablise governments and bring about the fall of capitalism, following the example of the Russian Revolution. One resourceful operative sees the possibilities of bootlegging to finance his activities against America, but his masters are not so keen on the idea of making vast amounts of money, regardless of the use it is to be put to. But his fatal mistake is attracting the attention of the Van Dorns, who still stick by their motto - We Never Give Up. Ever.
You pretty much get what you expect with this book, more of the same from the previous Isaac Bell books. Personally I enjoy them, the insight into American early 20th century history is always a fantastic backdrop. Scott's seeming obsession with train timetables is kept to a small section here regarding moving a cargo from one place to another. There is still the full selection of large engined transport - fast cars, fast planes and in this one fast boats. There are exciting chases and shootouts, plots and subplots, ruthless villains and gangsters aplenty and the real motives of the villain do not become clear until the final showdown.
It is a shame that we know the identity of the villain more or less right from the start rather than the Van Dorns having to piece the clues together to unmask him, as in the previous novels. Although in this case it would have been hard to explain the conflict between his communist aims and capitalist means of obtaining them, which is the real engine at the heart of the plot.
Unlike Columbo Bell is not sure who his man is for quite a way through the book until realisation dawns about who he must be looking for. But I felt that he suddenly went from not knowing the actual identity of the villain to seeing through all his subterfuge far too quickly. There didn't seem to be a Columbo 'Just one more thing' moment where the vital clue or clever insight threw everything wide open. But perhaps it was time for the story to cut to the chase - and it certainly does that to a satisfying (although possibly not great) finale.
Overall I enjoyed the book, the pace was good and the set pieces very well written. However it was never going to challenge the reader in any real way. But then it's an escapist adventure story, why should it?
Time has moved on for Bell; it is now the early 1920s prohibition is in force and the loss of lives during the First World War has hit the Van Dorn detective agency hard. Faced with routine lawbreaking to smuggle and sell alcohol on the East Coast, and with lucrative government contracts being lost to new federal agencies, the struggle against crime has never been harder. And when Bell has to take over the role of head of the agency he faces a tough job.
Meanwhile the recent war in Europe has spread communist revolutionaries across the world, trying to destablise governments and bring about the fall of capitalism, following the example of the Russian Revolution. One resourceful operative sees the possibilities of bootlegging to finance his activities against America, but his masters are not so keen on the idea of making vast amounts of money, regardless of the use it is to be put to. But his fatal mistake is attracting the attention of the Van Dorns, who still stick by their motto - We Never Give Up. Ever.
You pretty much get what you expect with this book, more of the same from the previous Isaac Bell books. Personally I enjoy them, the insight into American early 20th century history is always a fantastic backdrop. Scott's seeming obsession with train timetables is kept to a small section here regarding moving a cargo from one place to another. There is still the full selection of large engined transport - fast cars, fast planes and in this one fast boats. There are exciting chases and shootouts, plots and subplots, ruthless villains and gangsters aplenty and the real motives of the villain do not become clear until the final showdown.
It is a shame that we know the identity of the villain more or less right from the start rather than the Van Dorns having to piece the clues together to unmask him, as in the previous novels. Although in this case it would have been hard to explain the conflict between his communist aims and capitalist means of obtaining them, which is the real engine at the heart of the plot.
Unlike Columbo Bell is not sure who his man is for quite a way through the book until realisation dawns about who he must be looking for. But I felt that he suddenly went from not knowing the actual identity of the villain to seeing through all his subterfuge far too quickly. There didn't seem to be a Columbo 'Just one more thing' moment where the vital clue or clever insight threw everything wide open. But perhaps it was time for the story to cut to the chase - and it certainly does that to a satisfying (although possibly not great) finale.
Overall I enjoyed the book, the pace was good and the set pieces very well written. However it was never going to challenge the reader in any real way. But then it's an escapist adventure story, why should it?
What Did You Do in the Great War, Grandfather?: The Life and Times of an Edwardian Horse Artillery Officer
Book
Part history, part social documentary, part love story, this is a grandson's search for what his...
Man of Steel and Honour: General Stanislaw Maczek: Soldier of Poland, Commander of the 1st Polish Armoured Division in North-West Europe 1944-45
Book
This is a biography of one of the most undervalued commanders of the Second World War, General...
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) created a post
Nov 11, 2022
Britain at War - army, navy, air force history mag
Lifestyle and Magazines & Newspapers
8.0
Rate It
App
Britain at War Magazine Brought to you by Key Publishing Ltd, the World’s Leading Aviation...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.