Search
Search results
NAVIGON Middle East
Navigation and Travel
App
With NAVIGON you can turn your iPhone or iPad into a fully functional mobile navigation system....
NAVIGON Southern Africa
Navigation
App
With NAVIGON you can turn your iPhone or iPad into a fully functional mobile navigation system....
Evo (second edition)
9.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
In Evo, you play a nomadic people in symbiosis with a primitive reptilian species. You travel the...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“1, 2, You know what to do”.
I’ve put off watching this movie, since the subject matter didn’t immediately grab me. But I’m glad I caught it, since I really enjoyed it. All in all, it feels a little surprising in retrospect that “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom” didn’t make the Oscar “Best Picture” list.
Positives:
I really wanted to put down all of the ‘Oscar buzz’ about the late Chadwick Boseman to a mawkish sentimentality about the actor’s tragic passing (which sounds disrespectful, but is not intended to). But having seen the performance as Levee, I take it all back. He’s stunning in the role and thoroughly deserves not only the Oscar nomination, but potentially also the win. A monologue about a traumatic childhood experience is Oscar-clip gold. What a way to ‘go out on a high’.
Viola Davis has a miraculous transformation as the historical singer in the twilight of her career. When you see her doing interviews (there is a very good 30 minute “Making of” documentary on Netflix), it’s almost impossible to believe that she is the same actress.
There are some great supporting performances as well: Glynn Turman as Toledo is great; and Taylour Paige is memorably sexy as the love interest (surprisingly) of two of the leads.
Both the production design and the costume/hair design are exquisite: no more so than in the gorgeous opening scene of the performance in the tent. Again, very deserving of their Oscar nominations.
There are some great directorial flourishes by Wolfe. One of my favourite scenes has Boseman finally breaking down a mystery door to find…. well, no spoilers, but it is a metaphor for Levee’s own struggles against life.
Negatives:
Just as in another August Wilson adaptation, “Fences” (and indeed in the recent “One Night in Miami”), the production feels like a filmed stage play. The forward motion of the movie keeps stopping for monologues by some of the characters (albeit brilliant ones in many cases).
Positives:
I really wanted to put down all of the ‘Oscar buzz’ about the late Chadwick Boseman to a mawkish sentimentality about the actor’s tragic passing (which sounds disrespectful, but is not intended to). But having seen the performance as Levee, I take it all back. He’s stunning in the role and thoroughly deserves not only the Oscar nomination, but potentially also the win. A monologue about a traumatic childhood experience is Oscar-clip gold. What a way to ‘go out on a high’.
Viola Davis has a miraculous transformation as the historical singer in the twilight of her career. When you see her doing interviews (there is a very good 30 minute “Making of” documentary on Netflix), it’s almost impossible to believe that she is the same actress.
There are some great supporting performances as well: Glynn Turman as Toledo is great; and Taylour Paige is memorably sexy as the love interest (surprisingly) of two of the leads.
Both the production design and the costume/hair design are exquisite: no more so than in the gorgeous opening scene of the performance in the tent. Again, very deserving of their Oscar nominations.
There are some great directorial flourishes by Wolfe. One of my favourite scenes has Boseman finally breaking down a mystery door to find…. well, no spoilers, but it is a metaphor for Levee’s own struggles against life.
Negatives:
Just as in another August Wilson adaptation, “Fences” (and indeed in the recent “One Night in Miami”), the production feels like a filmed stage play. The forward motion of the movie keeps stopping for monologues by some of the characters (albeit brilliant ones in many cases).
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Assassin's Creed: The Official Movie Novelization in Books
May 21, 2017
Descriptive Writing brings out so much more information (6 more)
Characters and settings remain true in the adaptation
(Special Edition) Short stories to give more information and characters to the film
Action sequences are beautifully written
(Special Edition) Behind the Scenes stuff
(Special Edition) Beautiful Concept Art
(Special Edition) An overview of the Spanish Inquistion and the historical accuracy of the film
Bringing forth what the movie could not
So, as you all know this film, and this franchise, are my favourites, so my opinion is somewhat bias, but please understand that I know that the movie is in no way perfect or close to perfect of what it could have been, but I love what they have done.
With that said, I turned my attention to the novel, and pre-ordered the special edition because I knew it would make a great addition to my collection of Assassin's Creed novels, and I wanted everything I could possibly get from the novel. I love all the behind the scenes features on a DVD/Blu Ray and when I heard that this book contained some BHS content I wanted it so badly that I made sure I got the special edition despite the addition to the price.
The adaptation of the Film to the novel, is incredible. When Movies are adapted from Books, there will always be the person with you that says "The Book is always better". Sometimes, in the vice versa of this situation, when books are adapted from films, it doesn't always add anything more to make the film's plot better, or give you anything else to think about. This book is something else entirely.
In the movie we are introduced to so many characters, and so many sub plots that just can't be explored in the film itself, because it would be what I and others like to call, a cluster fuck. There would far too much going on, and people already seemed confused by the simple plot of the film, that the addition of these subplots would have given them a headache and everything they needed to see to enjoy the movie would be lost even further, as people would walk out of the cinemas saying "What the heck did I just watch?". Books allow the writer and the reader the freedom to explore these subplots and open up our experience to these other characters such as Moussa, Emir, Nathan, and Lin. If you don't even know these names, that's because the film didn't get the opportunity to express to you the importance of these names, whilst introducing them in a way that you only really remember them as, 'The other assassins in the facility who organize the breakout of Abstergo finale'.
However these characters each have their own Assassin ancestors, at least two of which are heavily connected to the video games. Lin's ancestor, is Shao Jun, the protagonist who you play as in Assassin's Creed Chronicles: China. Emir's ancestor, is a Turkish Assassin named Yusuf, the same Yusuf who you befriend in Assassin's Creed: Revelations, whilst playing as an older Ezio Auditore in his final video game to end the Ezio Trilogy. In the movie's special features, there is a deleted scene in which Cal is able to see these ancestors, during the common room scene as he is trying to eat his steak. However it was taken out due to it not making much sense for him to be able to see other people ancestors via the bleeding effect. The novel on the other hand, doesn't need this scene, and instead the reader is treated to the thoughts and a little backstory to each of these modern day assassins, and how they had felt after being introduced to their ancestors, and how they connected to them through their own lives.
We learn even more about the films central characters as well, mainly Aguilar, Sofia and Callum Lynch, and the novel adaptation gives us a new view on their relationship as a whole. Sofia feels emotions she has never felt with other patients. Callum has a lot running through his mind that just can't be spoken or portrayed in the film. Aguilar's relationship to his fellow Assassin Maria is opened up to us, with us learning that they had been very intimate, and that despite never truly portraying their love for one another, the two assassins knew what the other was thinking and they moved and thought in unison with one another, which makes the final memory sequence, that much more heart breaking, and powerful.
The book grants us access to everything, and this is what makes it such a thrilling read. From start to finish I just wanted to read on and on, despite how heavy my eyes felt at night, tucked up in bed. It grips you and pulls you into the exciting journey of the beautifully written emotional rollercoster. Christie Golden, known for her own literary work and for her work on other franchise based novels, including Star Wars, World of Warcraft and Star Trek, has done a fantastic job at expanded the movie into a new experience, which even I wasn't expecting, and I've watched the film twice in the cinema and about 7 times since the day of it's digital release, March 10, 2017. I really do love this book and everything it has to offer.
My only bad point, which is personal to me, as I have theories about certain points of this movie, and I was hoping it would help answer some of my theories. However, whilst it expanded on them a little, giving more evidence to support one of my theories, it simply left more questions than answers. That is no fault of the writer or her work, but simply to my own inquisitive mind. The book overall has no faults in my opinion.
If you enjoyed the movie, you'll love the book more. If you didn't enjoy the movie, give the book a try. It might surprise you.
With that said, I turned my attention to the novel, and pre-ordered the special edition because I knew it would make a great addition to my collection of Assassin's Creed novels, and I wanted everything I could possibly get from the novel. I love all the behind the scenes features on a DVD/Blu Ray and when I heard that this book contained some BHS content I wanted it so badly that I made sure I got the special edition despite the addition to the price.
The adaptation of the Film to the novel, is incredible. When Movies are adapted from Books, there will always be the person with you that says "The Book is always better". Sometimes, in the vice versa of this situation, when books are adapted from films, it doesn't always add anything more to make the film's plot better, or give you anything else to think about. This book is something else entirely.
In the movie we are introduced to so many characters, and so many sub plots that just can't be explored in the film itself, because it would be what I and others like to call, a cluster fuck. There would far too much going on, and people already seemed confused by the simple plot of the film, that the addition of these subplots would have given them a headache and everything they needed to see to enjoy the movie would be lost even further, as people would walk out of the cinemas saying "What the heck did I just watch?". Books allow the writer and the reader the freedom to explore these subplots and open up our experience to these other characters such as Moussa, Emir, Nathan, and Lin. If you don't even know these names, that's because the film didn't get the opportunity to express to you the importance of these names, whilst introducing them in a way that you only really remember them as, 'The other assassins in the facility who organize the breakout of Abstergo finale'.
However these characters each have their own Assassin ancestors, at least two of which are heavily connected to the video games. Lin's ancestor, is Shao Jun, the protagonist who you play as in Assassin's Creed Chronicles: China. Emir's ancestor, is a Turkish Assassin named Yusuf, the same Yusuf who you befriend in Assassin's Creed: Revelations, whilst playing as an older Ezio Auditore in his final video game to end the Ezio Trilogy. In the movie's special features, there is a deleted scene in which Cal is able to see these ancestors, during the common room scene as he is trying to eat his steak. However it was taken out due to it not making much sense for him to be able to see other people ancestors via the bleeding effect. The novel on the other hand, doesn't need this scene, and instead the reader is treated to the thoughts and a little backstory to each of these modern day assassins, and how they had felt after being introduced to their ancestors, and how they connected to them through their own lives.
We learn even more about the films central characters as well, mainly Aguilar, Sofia and Callum Lynch, and the novel adaptation gives us a new view on their relationship as a whole. Sofia feels emotions she has never felt with other patients. Callum has a lot running through his mind that just can't be spoken or portrayed in the film. Aguilar's relationship to his fellow Assassin Maria is opened up to us, with us learning that they had been very intimate, and that despite never truly portraying their love for one another, the two assassins knew what the other was thinking and they moved and thought in unison with one another, which makes the final memory sequence, that much more heart breaking, and powerful.
The book grants us access to everything, and this is what makes it such a thrilling read. From start to finish I just wanted to read on and on, despite how heavy my eyes felt at night, tucked up in bed. It grips you and pulls you into the exciting journey of the beautifully written emotional rollercoster. Christie Golden, known for her own literary work and for her work on other franchise based novels, including Star Wars, World of Warcraft and Star Trek, has done a fantastic job at expanded the movie into a new experience, which even I wasn't expecting, and I've watched the film twice in the cinema and about 7 times since the day of it's digital release, March 10, 2017. I really do love this book and everything it has to offer.
My only bad point, which is personal to me, as I have theories about certain points of this movie, and I was hoping it would help answer some of my theories. However, whilst it expanded on them a little, giving more evidence to support one of my theories, it simply left more questions than answers. That is no fault of the writer or her work, but simply to my own inquisitive mind. The book overall has no faults in my opinion.
If you enjoyed the movie, you'll love the book more. If you didn't enjoy the movie, give the book a try. It might surprise you.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Dark Tower (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Adapting Stephen King stories for the screen has long been a difficult problem for Hollywood. For every “Misery” and “The Shawshank Redemption”, there are many others such as “The Mangler”, “Cell”, “and Graveyard Shift” and many more where things did not go as planned.
The big issue is that King often creates detailed characters with complex backstories and puts then in fully developed worlds that despite their supernatural nature, often are easy for readers to relate to.
Also as any reader of his books knows, King is not one to spare the paper and his books can be very lengthy offerings. This is an issue for Hollywood as they are forced to condense a 400-800 page plus story in many cases to fewer than two hours of screen time. The solution has been to try television movies such as “The Langoliers”, “The Tommyknockers”, “The Stand”, and “It”. The problem with this format is that while spreading the story over multiple nights allows more time for the story, they gore and adult content which is often the core of the story has to be greatly watered down.
Which brings us to “The Dark Tower”, an adaptation of King’s largest offering as the series covers seven books and a novella, not to mention a Prequel comic and more. The series rolled out from 1982-2004 with King often saying that he might never finish the series. Fortunately for fans he released three books from 2003-2004 and was able to declare the story told.
The story tells of a world like ours, but different that has “moved on”. It is a dying world where Roland (Idris Elba), is pursuing a wizard named Walter (Matthew McConaughey), who is responsible for laying waste the world and killing all that come into Roland’s life. The books follow his unrelenting chase of The Man in Black over countless years and how he has become a cold and driven individual who thinks nothing of using people to get his revenge.
Roland is the last of the “Gunslingers”, a Knight like group who protected the world and who used guns that were rare in their world to keep the peace. Roland is highly skilled and unlike his now dead companions, is impervious to the magic of Walter which has allowed him to remain alive and continue his quest.
The Man in Black is fixated on destroying the Dark Tower, which protects the many worlds in the universe from the outside evils that look to destroy it. Along with a young boy from Earth named Jake (Tom Taylor), Roland must find a way to save the universe and exact his revenge.
The film keeps the conflict between Roland and The Man in Black but greatly condenses the story as it includes references to things in the first two books but omits much of the backstory and plot of the novels to tell what I would call a story that was inspired by, but not based on the books.
This is at the core the biggest issue with the film. I have read the books and while I wanted an adaptation that was closer to them, I did find myself enjoying the film more than I expected to. The leads were very good and even though they had a very watered down script to work with, they did a good job and the finale does have some nice visuals and action to it.
People I know who have read the books have naturally been very disappointed with the film but those who have not read the books have mentioned that they enjoyed the film and accepted it as a fun bit of escapist adventure.
There has been talk of a television series that would focus more on the third book onward which hopefully would include how Roland gained new followers from our world who were trained to be future Gunslingers. That remains to be seen as the success of the film will likely hold the key. I hope we do get to see it as there are countless stories and characters yet to tell in this universe and I think fans deserve to see them as King wrote them.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/03/the-dark-tower/
The big issue is that King often creates detailed characters with complex backstories and puts then in fully developed worlds that despite their supernatural nature, often are easy for readers to relate to.
Also as any reader of his books knows, King is not one to spare the paper and his books can be very lengthy offerings. This is an issue for Hollywood as they are forced to condense a 400-800 page plus story in many cases to fewer than two hours of screen time. The solution has been to try television movies such as “The Langoliers”, “The Tommyknockers”, “The Stand”, and “It”. The problem with this format is that while spreading the story over multiple nights allows more time for the story, they gore and adult content which is often the core of the story has to be greatly watered down.
Which brings us to “The Dark Tower”, an adaptation of King’s largest offering as the series covers seven books and a novella, not to mention a Prequel comic and more. The series rolled out from 1982-2004 with King often saying that he might never finish the series. Fortunately for fans he released three books from 2003-2004 and was able to declare the story told.
The story tells of a world like ours, but different that has “moved on”. It is a dying world where Roland (Idris Elba), is pursuing a wizard named Walter (Matthew McConaughey), who is responsible for laying waste the world and killing all that come into Roland’s life. The books follow his unrelenting chase of The Man in Black over countless years and how he has become a cold and driven individual who thinks nothing of using people to get his revenge.
Roland is the last of the “Gunslingers”, a Knight like group who protected the world and who used guns that were rare in their world to keep the peace. Roland is highly skilled and unlike his now dead companions, is impervious to the magic of Walter which has allowed him to remain alive and continue his quest.
The Man in Black is fixated on destroying the Dark Tower, which protects the many worlds in the universe from the outside evils that look to destroy it. Along with a young boy from Earth named Jake (Tom Taylor), Roland must find a way to save the universe and exact his revenge.
The film keeps the conflict between Roland and The Man in Black but greatly condenses the story as it includes references to things in the first two books but omits much of the backstory and plot of the novels to tell what I would call a story that was inspired by, but not based on the books.
This is at the core the biggest issue with the film. I have read the books and while I wanted an adaptation that was closer to them, I did find myself enjoying the film more than I expected to. The leads were very good and even though they had a very watered down script to work with, they did a good job and the finale does have some nice visuals and action to it.
People I know who have read the books have naturally been very disappointed with the film but those who have not read the books have mentioned that they enjoyed the film and accepted it as a fun bit of escapist adventure.
There has been talk of a television series that would focus more on the third book onward which hopefully would include how Roland gained new followers from our world who were trained to be future Gunslingers. That remains to be seen as the success of the film will likely hold the key. I hope we do get to see it as there are countless stories and characters yet to tell in this universe and I think fans deserve to see them as King wrote them.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/03/the-dark-tower/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Doom (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In a remote section of Mars, something has gone horribly wrong for the scientists of the Union Aerospace Corporation’s research facility. Scientists run screaming for their lives from a deadly threat. Trapped on a barren world against forces unknown, the call goes out for an elite team of specialists to contain the situation, and neutralize the threat at any cost.
In the new game to film adaptation Doom which is based on the phenomenally popular game series of the same name, International Action Star The Rock stars as Sarge, a by the book, no nonsense leader Of a rapid response team who have been tasked with quelling the situation on Mars. His #2 is John (Reaper) Grimm (Karl Urban), the son of two scientists who were killed years earlier in a move that drove John from the Red Planet and into the corps.
Unsure about where his head is Sarge suggests John take leave and skip the mission less he provide an unstable factor. Driven by his concern for his sister on the planet, and his devotion to duty, John accompanies his team to Mars via a teleportation device know as the Arc.
In no time the team has arrived and begun sweeping the affected areas of the base, and working to ensure that nothing can return to Earth without permission. As the team surveys the dark and isolated lab areas, John is also reunited with his sister Sam (Rosamund Pike), which brings up the memories of their dead parents and repressed hostility over his departure and emotional distance.
Of course this is a movie based on monsters and violence, so in no time, there are some strange things lurking in the darkened corridors of the lab and the team finds themselves locked in a series of deadly confrontations against enemies of unimaginable horror.
In short order the team is picked off by the deadly opposition which causes strain amongst the survivors, as it becomes clear that the work being conducted at the base was far from the simple excavations that they had been claiming for years. The truth is far more dangerous and soon has the very safety of Earth in the balance.
The changing dynamic soon divides Sarge and John and they find themselves at odds with not only the creatures but themselves as they battle for survival and the safety of the Earth.
As a fan of the game series I had followed the long development of the film with interest. As production began there were reports that the film would deviate from the game in not being set on Mars and following Zombies more than demons from hell. While the film is set on Mars there is some deviation that may upset fans of the game. Hell does not serve as the source of the enemies; rather it is something that is not present in any of the games. Another deviation is that the film unlike the game is not nonstop action.
Doom moves at a very deliberate pace and when the action comes, it tends to be against a solitary foe. Only for a brief segment near the conclusion of the film do we get a battle against a large mass, and then it is very short. The novel first person perspective shown late in the film was great fun as the audience howled with delight during this segment.
The Rock shows once again that he is a rising Star as his charisma and commanding presence propels the film even though he is a supporting character. No matter the cheese factor, or stiff lines, The Rock is such a compelling presence, he makes the film viewable. Urban is good in the lead role, though he is overshadowed by The Rock, as his strong soft spoken mannerisms seem out of place in a macho action setting.
All of this said, while it is by no means a landmark piece of cinema, Doom is fun, and is easily the best game adaptation to film yet.
In the new game to film adaptation Doom which is based on the phenomenally popular game series of the same name, International Action Star The Rock stars as Sarge, a by the book, no nonsense leader Of a rapid response team who have been tasked with quelling the situation on Mars. His #2 is John (Reaper) Grimm (Karl Urban), the son of two scientists who were killed years earlier in a move that drove John from the Red Planet and into the corps.
Unsure about where his head is Sarge suggests John take leave and skip the mission less he provide an unstable factor. Driven by his concern for his sister on the planet, and his devotion to duty, John accompanies his team to Mars via a teleportation device know as the Arc.
In no time the team has arrived and begun sweeping the affected areas of the base, and working to ensure that nothing can return to Earth without permission. As the team surveys the dark and isolated lab areas, John is also reunited with his sister Sam (Rosamund Pike), which brings up the memories of their dead parents and repressed hostility over his departure and emotional distance.
Of course this is a movie based on monsters and violence, so in no time, there are some strange things lurking in the darkened corridors of the lab and the team finds themselves locked in a series of deadly confrontations against enemies of unimaginable horror.
In short order the team is picked off by the deadly opposition which causes strain amongst the survivors, as it becomes clear that the work being conducted at the base was far from the simple excavations that they had been claiming for years. The truth is far more dangerous and soon has the very safety of Earth in the balance.
The changing dynamic soon divides Sarge and John and they find themselves at odds with not only the creatures but themselves as they battle for survival and the safety of the Earth.
As a fan of the game series I had followed the long development of the film with interest. As production began there were reports that the film would deviate from the game in not being set on Mars and following Zombies more than demons from hell. While the film is set on Mars there is some deviation that may upset fans of the game. Hell does not serve as the source of the enemies; rather it is something that is not present in any of the games. Another deviation is that the film unlike the game is not nonstop action.
Doom moves at a very deliberate pace and when the action comes, it tends to be against a solitary foe. Only for a brief segment near the conclusion of the film do we get a battle against a large mass, and then it is very short. The novel first person perspective shown late in the film was great fun as the audience howled with delight during this segment.
The Rock shows once again that he is a rising Star as his charisma and commanding presence propels the film even though he is a supporting character. No matter the cheese factor, or stiff lines, The Rock is such a compelling presence, he makes the film viewable. Urban is good in the lead role, though he is overshadowed by The Rock, as his strong soft spoken mannerisms seem out of place in a macho action setting.
All of this said, while it is by no means a landmark piece of cinema, Doom is fun, and is easily the best game adaptation to film yet.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
More CGI animals in another adaptation of a franchise that has been around since the 1920s. I do so love Eddie Murphy's comedy portrayal, am I ready for a period appropriate version?
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated On Chesil Beach (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Flawed but moving tale of a bygone sexual era.
As you might notice from my lack of recent posts, the day job is getting in a way a bit at the moment. But one film I wanted to catch was this adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel. What’s both an advantage and a disadvantage of catching a film late is that you can’t help avoid absorbing some of the reviews of others: Kevin Maher of the Times gave this a rather sniffy two stars; Amy from “Oh That Film Blog” was much more measured (an excellent review: man, that girl can write!). Last night, I actually ended up enjoying the film much more than I was expecting to.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
Set against Dorset’s spectacular shingle bank of Chesil Beach (which is a bitch to walk along!) the story, set primarily in 1962, joins two newly-weds Florence (Saoirse Ronan, “Brooklyn“, “Lady Bird“) and Edward (Billy Howle, “Dunkirk“) about to embark on the sexual adventure of their consummation at a seaside hotel. The timing of the film is critical: 1962 really marked the watershed between the staid conservatism and goody-two-shoes-ness of the 50’s and the sexual liberation of the swinging sixties. Sex before marriage was frowned upon. The problem for Florence and Edward is that sex after marriage is looking pretty unlikely too! For the inexperienced couple have more hang-ups about sex than there are pebbles on the beach.
The lead-up to their union is squirm-inducing to watch: a silent silver-service meal in their room; incompetent fumbling with zippers; shoes that refuse to come off. To prolong the agony for the viewer, we work through flashbacks of their first meeting at Oxford University and their dysfunctional family lives: for Florence a bullying father and mother (Samuel West and Emily Watson) and for Edward a loving but stressed father (TV regular, Adrian Scarborough) due to a mentally impaired mother (Anne-Marie Duff, “Suffragette“, “Before I Go To Sleep“).
As Ian McEwan is known to do (as per the end of “Atonement” for example), there are a couple of clever “Oh My God” twists in the tale: one merely hinted at in flashback; another involving a record-buying child that is also unresolved but begs a massive question.
The first half of the film is undoubtedly better than the last: while the screenplay is going for the “if only” twist of films like “Sliding Doors” and “La La Land“, the film over-stretches with some dodgy make-up where alternative actors would have been a far better choice. The ending still had the power to move me though.
Saoirse Ronan is magnificent: I don’t think I’ve seen the young Irish-American in a film I didn’t enjoy. Here she is back with a McEwan adaptation again and bleeds discomfort with every line of her face. Her desperate longing to talk to someone – such as the kindly probing vicar – is constantly counteracted by her shame and embarassment. Howle also holds his own well (no pun intended) but when up against the acting tour de force of Ronan he is always going to appear in second place.
A brave performance comes from Anne-Marie Duff who shines as the mentally wayward mother. The flashback where we see how she came to be that way is wholly predicatable but still manages to shock. And Duff is part of a strong ensemble cast who all do their bit.
Another star of the show for me is the photography by Sean Bobbitt (“12 Years a Slave“) which portrays the windswept Dorset beach beautifully but manages to get the frame close and claustrophobic when it needs to be. Wide panoramas with characters barely on the left and right of the frame will play havoc with DVD ratios on TV, but work superbly on the big screen.
Directed by stage-director Dominic Cooke, in his movie-directing debut, this is a brave story to try to move from page to screen and while it is not without faults it is a ball-achingly sad tale that moved me. Recommended if you enjoyed the similarly sad tale of “Atonement”.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Three Complete Novels (Psycho, Psycho II, and Psycho House) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<b>Psycho</b>
How can I read and review the book Psycho without comparing it to its movie adaptation? Yeah, not possible. For starters, the biggest difference has to be Norman Bates' physical description, which is balding and dumpy in the book. A far cry from Anthony Perkins. For most of the book I admit to not being able to visualize Norman in a different light than Perkins, who I feel was genius casting. I mean, who in that day and age would ever see that next-door-boy-look as a threat? Other than that, I have to say that the movie is pretty darned true to the book; some minor things but nothing necessary was kept out. I enjoyed Bloch's writing, it's just smooth and easy to read, keeping to a nice clip. The next to last chapter has a bit of an infodump explaining Norman's behavior, but it's short and really didn't bother me. Probably one of the best handled infodumps I've come across. So, I'd definitely recommend reading the book if you enjoy the movie, it adds a little here and there to the film.
<i>4 stars</i>
<b>Psycho II</b>
How do I put this succinctly...? What a total piece of crap.
I thought it started out pretty well, for say about the first 25 or 30 pages, minus Norman's rape of a nun's corpse (which didn't seem in his character IMHO), but then it started going downhill and ended up in a deep, deep well. Bloch's characters and plot are cliche, boring, obnoxious, two-dimensional or a combination of all of the above. The denouement is ridiculous, although not totally unforseen, and it just seemed like Bloch wasn't even interested in writing a proper sequel with Norman Bates and was more interested in showing Hollywood as amoral and vapid. Whatever. I'm glad this is over. I have better things to do with my time, like clean the litter boxes.
<i>1.5 stars</i>
I will eventually get to <b>Psycho House</b> but I need a recovery period so this is going back to the library. I highly doubt that it'll be worse than P2.
How can I read and review the book Psycho without comparing it to its movie adaptation? Yeah, not possible. For starters, the biggest difference has to be Norman Bates' physical description, which is balding and dumpy in the book. A far cry from Anthony Perkins. For most of the book I admit to not being able to visualize Norman in a different light than Perkins, who I feel was genius casting. I mean, who in that day and age would ever see that next-door-boy-look as a threat? Other than that, I have to say that the movie is pretty darned true to the book; some minor things but nothing necessary was kept out. I enjoyed Bloch's writing, it's just smooth and easy to read, keeping to a nice clip. The next to last chapter has a bit of an infodump explaining Norman's behavior, but it's short and really didn't bother me. Probably one of the best handled infodumps I've come across. So, I'd definitely recommend reading the book if you enjoy the movie, it adds a little here and there to the film.
<i>4 stars</i>
<b>Psycho II</b>
How do I put this succinctly...? What a total piece of crap.
I thought it started out pretty well, for say about the first 25 or 30 pages, minus Norman's rape of a nun's corpse (which didn't seem in his character IMHO), but then it started going downhill and ended up in a deep, deep well. Bloch's characters and plot are cliche, boring, obnoxious, two-dimensional or a combination of all of the above. The denouement is ridiculous, although not totally unforseen, and it just seemed like Bloch wasn't even interested in writing a proper sequel with Norman Bates and was more interested in showing Hollywood as amoral and vapid. Whatever. I'm glad this is over. I have better things to do with my time, like clean the litter boxes.
<i>1.5 stars</i>
I will eventually get to <b>Psycho House</b> but I need a recovery period so this is going back to the library. I highly doubt that it'll be worse than P2.