Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Courier (2020) in Movies
Aug 16, 2021
Cumberbatch is brilliant. (1 more)
Great real life history lesson
A peerless Cumberbatch and a miscast Buckley.
It's not to be confused with the Olga Kurylenko / Gary Oldman 2019 movie of the same title. But with a fresh Berlin current-day Russian spy scandal in the news this week, seeing the cold war spy drama "The Courier" is a timely thing to do.
Positives:
- Benedict Cumberbatch is outstandingly good in this. He could have been born to play the slightly bemused English gentlemen of the time. All golf, tweed suits and gentlemen's clubs. No spoilers, but there is a physical transformation as well that's impressive to observe. The film would have been decidedly so-so I think without that core central performance.
- The film is based on a true story. As someone who was born in 1961, it's a good reminder to count our blessings that you, me and everyone else are still around to live our lives at all. The world was on the brink of a precipice and learning the story of Wynne's part in this was insightful history.
- There's a nice catchy Russian-themed score by Abel Korzeniowski.
Negatives:
- I'm a big fan of Jessie Buckley. Really, I am. And to be fair to her, her performance is really good. I particularly liked a scene where she dismissed on the doorstep a local busybody. But I just didn't see her as Wynne's pearl-neckless-wearing wife in this part. Perhaps the problem is that although there's a 13 year age gap between the leads, I always imagine Buckley as being much younger that her 31 years. For whatever reason, the casting didn't work for me.
Summary Thoughts on "The Courier": As a true-life spy story, the movie is interesting and Cumberbatch's performance is brilliant. But I can't say that I was 100% grabbed by it. While having a few moments of high drama and tension - particularly one on a plane - I never felt that to be maintained for enough of the movie. Director Dominic Cooke has a limited filmography (with the Saoirse Ronan movie "On Chesil Beach" being his only other feature) and writer Tom O'Connor is the guy behind the more flippant "Hitman's Bodyguard" films. Perhaps a more experienced writer/director team would have elevated this to a higher level.
So it's eminently watchable but not memorable. Just a marginal hit in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Benedict Cumberbatch is outstandingly good in this. He could have been born to play the slightly bemused English gentlemen of the time. All golf, tweed suits and gentlemen's clubs. No spoilers, but there is a physical transformation as well that's impressive to observe. The film would have been decidedly so-so I think without that core central performance.
- The film is based on a true story. As someone who was born in 1961, it's a good reminder to count our blessings that you, me and everyone else are still around to live our lives at all. The world was on the brink of a precipice and learning the story of Wynne's part in this was insightful history.
- There's a nice catchy Russian-themed score by Abel Korzeniowski.
Negatives:
- I'm a big fan of Jessie Buckley. Really, I am. And to be fair to her, her performance is really good. I particularly liked a scene where she dismissed on the doorstep a local busybody. But I just didn't see her as Wynne's pearl-neckless-wearing wife in this part. Perhaps the problem is that although there's a 13 year age gap between the leads, I always imagine Buckley as being much younger that her 31 years. For whatever reason, the casting didn't work for me.
Summary Thoughts on "The Courier": As a true-life spy story, the movie is interesting and Cumberbatch's performance is brilliant. But I can't say that I was 100% grabbed by it. While having a few moments of high drama and tension - particularly one on a plane - I never felt that to be maintained for enough of the movie. Director Dominic Cooke has a limited filmography (with the Saoirse Ronan movie "On Chesil Beach" being his only other feature) and writer Tom O'Connor is the guy behind the more flippant "Hitman's Bodyguard" films. Perhaps a more experienced writer/director team would have elevated this to a higher level.
So it's eminently watchable but not memorable. Just a marginal hit in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Debbiereadsbook (1186 KP) rated Hunter's Desire (Dark Reserves #2) in Books
Apr 27, 2020
bloody LOVED this!
Independent reviewer for Gay Romance Reviews, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Okay then!
Daddy kink has been very hit and miss for me, some okay, some good, but not ever so many being so bloody good, but this one??
So Bloody Good!!
Hunter is a Dom, through and through but is disillusioned with the scene and wants to step away. He wants to retire for the police force. He wants. . . . something else. Colsen is a train wreck waiting to happen, after the death of his mother, he is wracked with guilt for not answering the phone and now he has been suspended from work. The weekend in Vegas to celebrate his best friend's up-coming wedding is the last thing he needs but he won't let his friend down. Hunter and Colsen come together, and it's not a matter of if they will butt heads, it's purely a matter of when. Can what happens in Vegas really STAY in Vegas?
I think what makes this one work so well for ME was this was a Daddy/boy relationship, rather than a Daddy/little one. Yes, Hunter buys Lego kits for Colsen, but thats more to focus his mind on something else. And Hunter wasn't really a Daddy before Colsen, either. A Dom, yes, but not a Daddy. There is an age gap, yes, but Hunter is approaching 50 (much to his disgust!) and Colsen is in his 30's. They are both working their way through what they need from the other, even if they hate each other.
And they work through their way spectactularly! Heads butt, yes indeed, and fists almost, but what gets to Colsen the most? Words. Words Hunter says in a certain tone, that pushes all kinds of his buttons he didn't know needed pushing. I LOVED how much Colsen fought Hunter, I really did. It doesn't take much for Hunter to find out why Colson is drinking so much, and once he does, he changes tactics to get Colson. Because Hunter WANTS Colsen like he never wanted before, and Colsen will be his boy, even if only for the weekend in Vegas.
But they can't leave it in Vegas, and it is great reading when Colsen finds out what Hunter did, and when Hunter comes into Colsen's space for the first time, discovering he kept some things going.
I loved it, when they finally, FINALLY, admit those three little words to each other! Very in keeping with these guys, and I loved the little epilogue.
I was to go back and read Dan and Theo's story now, too. It's their wedding they are in Vegas to celebrate. I want to continue with this series too, some interesting characters!
It's been a while since I had a one sitting read, and this one just nailed it, for me.
5 sparkling Vegas stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Okay then!
Daddy kink has been very hit and miss for me, some okay, some good, but not ever so many being so bloody good, but this one??
So Bloody Good!!
Hunter is a Dom, through and through but is disillusioned with the scene and wants to step away. He wants to retire for the police force. He wants. . . . something else. Colsen is a train wreck waiting to happen, after the death of his mother, he is wracked with guilt for not answering the phone and now he has been suspended from work. The weekend in Vegas to celebrate his best friend's up-coming wedding is the last thing he needs but he won't let his friend down. Hunter and Colsen come together, and it's not a matter of if they will butt heads, it's purely a matter of when. Can what happens in Vegas really STAY in Vegas?
I think what makes this one work so well for ME was this was a Daddy/boy relationship, rather than a Daddy/little one. Yes, Hunter buys Lego kits for Colsen, but thats more to focus his mind on something else. And Hunter wasn't really a Daddy before Colsen, either. A Dom, yes, but not a Daddy. There is an age gap, yes, but Hunter is approaching 50 (much to his disgust!) and Colsen is in his 30's. They are both working their way through what they need from the other, even if they hate each other.
And they work through their way spectactularly! Heads butt, yes indeed, and fists almost, but what gets to Colsen the most? Words. Words Hunter says in a certain tone, that pushes all kinds of his buttons he didn't know needed pushing. I LOVED how much Colsen fought Hunter, I really did. It doesn't take much for Hunter to find out why Colson is drinking so much, and once he does, he changes tactics to get Colson. Because Hunter WANTS Colsen like he never wanted before, and Colsen will be his boy, even if only for the weekend in Vegas.
But they can't leave it in Vegas, and it is great reading when Colsen finds out what Hunter did, and when Hunter comes into Colsen's space for the first time, discovering he kept some things going.
I loved it, when they finally, FINALLY, admit those three little words to each other! Very in keeping with these guys, and I loved the little epilogue.
I was to go back and read Dan and Theo's story now, too. It's their wedding they are in Vegas to celebrate. I want to continue with this series too, some interesting characters!
It's been a while since I had a one sitting read, and this one just nailed it, for me.
5 sparkling Vegas stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Rebecca (2020) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020
A dull adaptation
Rebecca is an adaptation of Daphne Du Maurier’s 1938 novel of the same name, following a young woman’s whirlwind romance and her battle to rid her new marriage and home of the shadow of her husband’s first wife.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Rebecca as a novel is a classic and a book I very much enjoyed, and whilst I’ve never seen the Hitchcock adaptation, it’s often referred to as a fairly legendary classic too. However I’m afraid to say the same cannot be said about this new version. The basic plot and story is present, although rather frustratingly the ending has been extended unnecessarily, but it has not been executed very well.
The trailer made this look quite sinister and spooky, which is quite right when the original novel is a gothic horror with aspects of a ghost story thrown in. However this film turns out to be nothing of the sort. It’s more of a romantic drama with a hint of thriller thrown in – the gothic horror ghost story is nowhere to be seen and neither is any form of intrigue or suspense. In fact I’d be so bold as to say this is just outright dull, and even the campy over the top sinister vibes from Kristin Scott Thomas’s housekeeper Mrs Danvers are laughable at best. The most interesting part of this was the opening scene with it’s sinister score but this just didn’t carry through to the rest of the film.
Sadly the cast don’t fare very well in this either. Lily James is a great actor, but her version of the new wife is too mousy and timid and you wonder what on earth Maxim ever sees in her. The character herself is very frustrating and irksome as she’s far too naïve and sweet. And Armie Hammer is miscast as Maxim De Winter himself. He looks the part, dashing and handsome, but he’s lacking in the intrigue, charm and secrecy that you’d expect this character to have. He’s also missing the age gap that is rather notable in the book.
The cinematography in this is rather concerning. The scenes in Monte Carlo are far too colourful and garish and they just look out of place, even more so for something that is meant to be a gothic horror. I’m unsure of why this has been done, other than to show a striking difference between Monte Carlo and Maxim’s Cornish home of Manderley. In fact what is most concerning about this film is why Ben Wheatley wanted to direct it. By far the biggest shock of this film was finding out Wheatley, of Kill List and Sightseers fame, had directed it. Wheatley is known for psychological dark (and often funny) thrillers and there is nothing of his style to be seen in this film at all. Which is a shame, as I think a little more of his dark style would’ve propelled this film into more than just a sub-par drama.
Overall this a very disappointing and long winded adaptation of a classic novel. Whilst there are a few decent scenes and a good, if not out of character, performance from Lily James, these are nowhere near enough to save this from being a bit of a bore.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated All the Ugly and Wonderful Things in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Firstly, I'd like to thank Netgalley and St Martin's Press for the opportunity to read this book in exchange for an honest review.
NOW AVAILABLE IN THE UK!
Full review here too: http://bit.ly/1qZtGhP
<i><b>Right up until that moment it was sweet and funny. Odd couple that they were, they had a real connection. Then he tugged her boot off and kissed the bottom of her bare foot. I could see him doing that kind of thing to his own kid, but she wasnt. She was somebody elses little girl.</i></b>
I am an <b>emotional wreck.</b> How has this book set my moral compass so askew? How could I have possibly been crying over a relationship between a grown man and a minor? I was distraught kinda crying, not a horrified or disgusted kinda crying either! I know Im being a sheep when I say this but <b>wow, this is amazing!</b> I was so worried I'd dislike this book because it was so hyped up but it did not disappoint, not even a little bit.
Youll be amazed at how well Greenwood has reinvented the adult-male-child-female relationship that we see all too often in novels and films. Shes managed to completely turn the disgusting, abusive image on its head. The love between Kellen and Wavy is the truest and realist love I've seen in a book for a seriously long time. There is absolutely <i>no</i> comparison between Kellen and Wavy with Humbert and Lolita, its not that sort of book. There are some people who, undoubtedly, are not going to like this book or the message its putting across, but you have to know that there is nothing evil in this age gap relationship as you would first guess there to be.
I can almost understand why Kellen and Wavy fall in love so quickly and so passionately. Wavy has had such a horrible existence, with her abusive, drug addicted father and her horrible mother who doesnt care for anyone but herself. Wavy is her own person, even from the beginning of this story, she may only be 8 years old but shes already a woman, shes had to live her life looking after herself and her baby brother, she already knows what it is to be an adult, so its no surprise she springs into adulthood at such a full force. And then there is Kellen, hes lonely and undesirable <i>(apparently)</i> and hes also bullied by the people around him he calls friends. So when Wavy comes along and looks at him and treats him like hes the most wonderful person in the world, its not really a surprise that a strong bond grows between them almost instantly.
I believe that at the beginning of their relationship there is no sexual desire, I honestly think their relationship is one of friendship and love in a more uncle and niece kind of way, but soon enough these feelings become something more. Kellen, although he does desire sexual gratification, knows his feelings are misplaced and so there is nothing dark and evil about his feeling towards Wavy, and for me, this makes him one of the best male character Ive read about in a long time, no matter if hes a paedophile or not. He's an incredible man and I absolutely loved him.
This book is a serious roller coaster of emotions and had me blubbering like a baby for the last 10%, or more, of the book. I am in love with this book, so thank you <i>very</i> much Bryn Greenwood for this amazing novel and giving me the chance to read it before publication! Ive already recommended this to friends and family and I cant wait to read more of Greenwoods writing.
<spoiler>I am over the moon with how this ended, I was rooting for their relationship to last throughout the whole thing, as sick as that makes me sound. Thank you Greenwood for the happy ending!</spoiler>
NOW AVAILABLE IN THE UK!
Full review here too: http://bit.ly/1qZtGhP
<i><b>Right up until that moment it was sweet and funny. Odd couple that they were, they had a real connection. Then he tugged her boot off and kissed the bottom of her bare foot. I could see him doing that kind of thing to his own kid, but she wasnt. She was somebody elses little girl.</i></b>
I am an <b>emotional wreck.</b> How has this book set my moral compass so askew? How could I have possibly been crying over a relationship between a grown man and a minor? I was distraught kinda crying, not a horrified or disgusted kinda crying either! I know Im being a sheep when I say this but <b>wow, this is amazing!</b> I was so worried I'd dislike this book because it was so hyped up but it did not disappoint, not even a little bit.
Youll be amazed at how well Greenwood has reinvented the adult-male-child-female relationship that we see all too often in novels and films. Shes managed to completely turn the disgusting, abusive image on its head. The love between Kellen and Wavy is the truest and realist love I've seen in a book for a seriously long time. There is absolutely <i>no</i> comparison between Kellen and Wavy with Humbert and Lolita, its not that sort of book. There are some people who, undoubtedly, are not going to like this book or the message its putting across, but you have to know that there is nothing evil in this age gap relationship as you would first guess there to be.
I can almost understand why Kellen and Wavy fall in love so quickly and so passionately. Wavy has had such a horrible existence, with her abusive, drug addicted father and her horrible mother who doesnt care for anyone but herself. Wavy is her own person, even from the beginning of this story, she may only be 8 years old but shes already a woman, shes had to live her life looking after herself and her baby brother, she already knows what it is to be an adult, so its no surprise she springs into adulthood at such a full force. And then there is Kellen, hes lonely and undesirable <i>(apparently)</i> and hes also bullied by the people around him he calls friends. So when Wavy comes along and looks at him and treats him like hes the most wonderful person in the world, its not really a surprise that a strong bond grows between them almost instantly.
I believe that at the beginning of their relationship there is no sexual desire, I honestly think their relationship is one of friendship and love in a more uncle and niece kind of way, but soon enough these feelings become something more. Kellen, although he does desire sexual gratification, knows his feelings are misplaced and so there is nothing dark and evil about his feeling towards Wavy, and for me, this makes him one of the best male character Ive read about in a long time, no matter if hes a paedophile or not. He's an incredible man and I absolutely loved him.
This book is a serious roller coaster of emotions and had me blubbering like a baby for the last 10%, or more, of the book. I am in love with this book, so thank you <i>very</i> much Bryn Greenwood for this amazing novel and giving me the chance to read it before publication! Ive already recommended this to friends and family and I cant wait to read more of Greenwoods writing.
<spoiler>I am over the moon with how this ended, I was rooting for their relationship to last throughout the whole thing, as sick as that makes me sound. Thank you Greenwood for the happy ending!</spoiler>
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Batman Gotham Knight (2008) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Batman: Gotham Knight was originally advertised as an animated feature that bridged the gap between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but it’s more of a Batman in his early stages becoming the legendary crime fighting vigilante he’s known as today. There are six segments in total with each segment having a different production studio.
The first segment is entitled, “Have I Got a Story For You,” and it’s written by Josh Olson (A History of Violence) and animated by Studio 4°C (Berserk: Golden Age Arc, Mind Game). The segment follows a boy who is waiting for his friends to arrive. Once they do, each of them tells a different story relating to what incredible Batman incident they witnessed that day. Each retelling is farfetched in its own way as this story capitalizes on teenagers stretching the truth and having overactive imaginations. Their day doesn’t seem to be finished though as the fight they all witnessed makes its way to their local hangout; the skate park.
“Crossfire” is written by Greg Rucka (Gotham, Jessica Jones) and animated by Production I.G. (FLCL, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex). This segment focuses on Chris and Anna being a part of Lieutenant Gordon’s MCU (Major Crime Unit). Chris thinks Batman is a vigilante that takes the law into his hands while Anna is still unsure about him and is just thankful that good cops that know how to do their job are actually being respected now that Batman has become part of the picture. After taking a recent Arkham escapee back to the asylum, Chris and Anna soon realize that they’re stuck in the middle of a gang war between Sal Maroni and The Russian.
“Field Test” is written by Jordan Goldberg (Westworld) and animated by Bee Train (.hack//Sign, Blade of the Immortal). Lucius Fox is showing Bruce Wayne some new gadgets. Amongst them is a harness equipped with an electromagnetic pulse strong enough to deflect bullets. Batman decides to test it out with Maroni, The Russian, and his goons. Everything seems to be going well until Batman encounters a glitch.
“In Darkness Dwells” is written by David S. Goyer (the Blade franchise, Man of Steel) and animated by Madhouse (One Punch Man, Death Note). Everyone is hunting Killer Croc. For this story, Croc is a former patient of Jonathan Crane/The Scarecrow and one of the reasons he was admitted to Dr. Crane was for his fear of bats.
“Working Through Pain” is written by Brian Azzarello (Batman: The Killing Joke) and animated by Studio 4°C. Batman is injured on what seems like any other night he puts his mask on. His tenacity takes center stage as you witness how often he struggles with nightly injuries. There are also flashbacks to his past that illustrate the difference between exterior and interior pain. There’s a way to put pain in its place and this is how Bruce Wayne found out how.
“Deadshot” is written by Alan Burnett (Batman: Mask of the Phantasm) and animated by Madhouse. Deadshot has returned to Gotham and has set his sights on Jim Gordon, but he looks to have ulterior motives. You also learn about how Bruce Wayne feels about guns.
Gotham Knight is superbly animated and has an accessible flow to it despite its various stories and alternating casts. The animation is fantastic as everything moves crisply and smoothly. The artistic style may change from story to story, but the voice cast is the same throughout. While each individual story has its own narrative to tell, everything is connected in some way that flows together nicely. This was one of the first times Kevin Conroy returned to voice Batman and his voice has become the iconic Batman voice for anyone who grew up watching Batman: The Animated Series. Hearing Conroy as Batman is like a homecoming in so many ways.
Whether you’re an anime fan, a Batman fan, or you’re looking for something new to catch your eye, Gotham Knight is worthwhile for animation and comic book fans alike. The animation is beautiful and the stories are enticing enough to keep you interested throughout. Kevin Conroy is the real drawing point here, but the rest of the voice cast is solid, as well. The Batman Begins/The Dark Knight connections are mostly hogwash as the animated feature adds nothing to Christopher Nolan’s Batman universe, but is an entertaining way to spend 76-minutes nevertheless.
Batman: Gotham Knight is available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and iTunes for $3.99. The Multi-Format Blu-ray is available on Amazon for $7.32 and as a double feature Blu-ray with Batman: Year One for $17.97. The Gotham Knight/Year One Blu-ray is $9.08 on eBay and the Multi-Format Blu-ray is $6.99; both are in brand new condition and both have free shipping.
The first segment is entitled, “Have I Got a Story For You,” and it’s written by Josh Olson (A History of Violence) and animated by Studio 4°C (Berserk: Golden Age Arc, Mind Game). The segment follows a boy who is waiting for his friends to arrive. Once they do, each of them tells a different story relating to what incredible Batman incident they witnessed that day. Each retelling is farfetched in its own way as this story capitalizes on teenagers stretching the truth and having overactive imaginations. Their day doesn’t seem to be finished though as the fight they all witnessed makes its way to their local hangout; the skate park.
“Crossfire” is written by Greg Rucka (Gotham, Jessica Jones) and animated by Production I.G. (FLCL, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex). This segment focuses on Chris and Anna being a part of Lieutenant Gordon’s MCU (Major Crime Unit). Chris thinks Batman is a vigilante that takes the law into his hands while Anna is still unsure about him and is just thankful that good cops that know how to do their job are actually being respected now that Batman has become part of the picture. After taking a recent Arkham escapee back to the asylum, Chris and Anna soon realize that they’re stuck in the middle of a gang war between Sal Maroni and The Russian.
“Field Test” is written by Jordan Goldberg (Westworld) and animated by Bee Train (.hack//Sign, Blade of the Immortal). Lucius Fox is showing Bruce Wayne some new gadgets. Amongst them is a harness equipped with an electromagnetic pulse strong enough to deflect bullets. Batman decides to test it out with Maroni, The Russian, and his goons. Everything seems to be going well until Batman encounters a glitch.
“In Darkness Dwells” is written by David S. Goyer (the Blade franchise, Man of Steel) and animated by Madhouse (One Punch Man, Death Note). Everyone is hunting Killer Croc. For this story, Croc is a former patient of Jonathan Crane/The Scarecrow and one of the reasons he was admitted to Dr. Crane was for his fear of bats.
“Working Through Pain” is written by Brian Azzarello (Batman: The Killing Joke) and animated by Studio 4°C. Batman is injured on what seems like any other night he puts his mask on. His tenacity takes center stage as you witness how often he struggles with nightly injuries. There are also flashbacks to his past that illustrate the difference between exterior and interior pain. There’s a way to put pain in its place and this is how Bruce Wayne found out how.
“Deadshot” is written by Alan Burnett (Batman: Mask of the Phantasm) and animated by Madhouse. Deadshot has returned to Gotham and has set his sights on Jim Gordon, but he looks to have ulterior motives. You also learn about how Bruce Wayne feels about guns.
Gotham Knight is superbly animated and has an accessible flow to it despite its various stories and alternating casts. The animation is fantastic as everything moves crisply and smoothly. The artistic style may change from story to story, but the voice cast is the same throughout. While each individual story has its own narrative to tell, everything is connected in some way that flows together nicely. This was one of the first times Kevin Conroy returned to voice Batman and his voice has become the iconic Batman voice for anyone who grew up watching Batman: The Animated Series. Hearing Conroy as Batman is like a homecoming in so many ways.
Whether you’re an anime fan, a Batman fan, or you’re looking for something new to catch your eye, Gotham Knight is worthwhile for animation and comic book fans alike. The animation is beautiful and the stories are enticing enough to keep you interested throughout. Kevin Conroy is the real drawing point here, but the rest of the voice cast is solid, as well. The Batman Begins/The Dark Knight connections are mostly hogwash as the animated feature adds nothing to Christopher Nolan’s Batman universe, but is an entertaining way to spend 76-minutes nevertheless.
Batman: Gotham Knight is available to stream on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play for $2.99 and iTunes for $3.99. The Multi-Format Blu-ray is available on Amazon for $7.32 and as a double feature Blu-ray with Batman: Year One for $17.97. The Gotham Knight/Year One Blu-ray is $9.08 on eBay and the Multi-Format Blu-ray is $6.99; both are in brand new condition and both have free shipping.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Why is this even prefaced everywhere with Fast & Furious? Apart from a couple of characters and the fact there are cars with a crapload of action they aren't really the same thing.
Hattie Shaw and her MI6 team have secured a virus that could threaten everyone if it gets into the wrong hands. In a surprise attacked by Brixton, an enhanced "bad guy", her entire team is killed and she has to make a quick decision.
As the story of the missing vial gets out handlers call in their top assets to retrieve it. The trouble is that they hate each other and working together isn't something that's going to work. Hobbs goes looking for Hattie on the streets and Shaw heads to her flat, both set some action they weren't expecting to, highlighting just what they're up against.
As an offshoot from the Fast & Furious franchise you expect the action, but Hobbs & Shaw takes a much bigger step towards comedy, which thankfully both Johnson and Statham are good at. Individually they'll get me to see a film, I might wish I hadn't when I come out of it, but you can pretty much guarantee that they'll give you a consistent result when it comes to the acting.
The two of them together are fun and they bounce off each other with impeccable timing, but there might be just a little bit too much insulting back and forth thrown into this one. It's not that it's bad, it's just that when it happens it can occasionally feel too long. It's almost as if they told them to improvise and they'd cut out a whole load of it and then never did. [One of my favourite bits of them together in the film is at the beginning of the trailer above.]
Vanessa Kirby as Shaw's sister Hattie is a bit more sensible than the leading men, that doesn't mean she's any less engaged in the action though. Right from the off they're showing her as tough and no-nonsense which fits in with the family characteristics. You get some great glimpses of the Shaw kids showing shared traits and it's really nice to see that link on the screen. Outside of the action and the family moments she sadly doesn't feel like a very well-formed character, there are several inconsistencies in her that I found to be confusing. You'd think one of those would be the age gap between her and Deckard, but honestly, until I saw some people mention it online I hadn't noticed it... it's a summer blockbuster... who's watching for those sorts of technicalities?!
Our bad guy Brixton, portrayed by Idris Elba is... yummy. I don't feel like there's much to say about Brixton, he kicks ass, he's got great tech and there's a good history with Shaw... but... he didn't really feel like a bad guy. Eteon certainly felt like an evil empire, but Brixton is just a minion in the grand scheme of things. I have my theories about Eteon, but that would mean major spoilers I'm afraid. I imagine we'll see more of them in the next one.
We get another wonderful pop up from Helen Mirren. Yeeeeeess, Queen! She's brilliant as always. There are a few cameos, and I'm impressed they managed to keep them secret. It was a fun discovery and definitely added to the humour of the whole thing, had you taken them out of the mix then you would have been left a much more "sensible" action film, but they went with it and it was certainly entertaining.
Obviously there's a lot of action, in a lot of different scenes. As ridiculous as it is, I did like the London chase that happens shortly after the jog down the building that you see in the trailer. It includes some good jaw-dropping moments and ends with a particularly satisfying moment. As fun as this sequence was, it does include the most dubious bit of CGI in the whole film... watch for that bike.
My other favourite scene is the finale, the whole thing is kind of long but specifically I'm thinking about Hobbs, Shaw and Brixton facing off. Even before going into the film you know exactly what needs to happen to get to the resolution, so when they get to that point you're sat going "about time!" As the storm sets in we get an amazing sequence with slow-mo of the three of them fighting in the rain. It was immense... some may say daft, but that's totally why I turned up for it. There's also some great glitching of Brixton's tech that I thought worked really well with everything. My only issue is that there's one moment where Jason Statham appears to genuinely smile and it feels completely out of character.
There are some things I want to mention before I finish.
- There feels like a lot of product placement happening throughout, including for things that aren't even real products.
- You do not... I repeat... DO NOT drive by a Greggs without stopping for a chicken bake.
Let's face it, if you even remotely enjoy action and comedy together then you're going to be enjoying this movie. You don't need to switch your brain on to watch this, it's just pure entertainment.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/hobbs-shaw-movie-review.html
Hattie Shaw and her MI6 team have secured a virus that could threaten everyone if it gets into the wrong hands. In a surprise attacked by Brixton, an enhanced "bad guy", her entire team is killed and she has to make a quick decision.
As the story of the missing vial gets out handlers call in their top assets to retrieve it. The trouble is that they hate each other and working together isn't something that's going to work. Hobbs goes looking for Hattie on the streets and Shaw heads to her flat, both set some action they weren't expecting to, highlighting just what they're up against.
As an offshoot from the Fast & Furious franchise you expect the action, but Hobbs & Shaw takes a much bigger step towards comedy, which thankfully both Johnson and Statham are good at. Individually they'll get me to see a film, I might wish I hadn't when I come out of it, but you can pretty much guarantee that they'll give you a consistent result when it comes to the acting.
The two of them together are fun and they bounce off each other with impeccable timing, but there might be just a little bit too much insulting back and forth thrown into this one. It's not that it's bad, it's just that when it happens it can occasionally feel too long. It's almost as if they told them to improvise and they'd cut out a whole load of it and then never did. [One of my favourite bits of them together in the film is at the beginning of the trailer above.]
Vanessa Kirby as Shaw's sister Hattie is a bit more sensible than the leading men, that doesn't mean she's any less engaged in the action though. Right from the off they're showing her as tough and no-nonsense which fits in with the family characteristics. You get some great glimpses of the Shaw kids showing shared traits and it's really nice to see that link on the screen. Outside of the action and the family moments she sadly doesn't feel like a very well-formed character, there are several inconsistencies in her that I found to be confusing. You'd think one of those would be the age gap between her and Deckard, but honestly, until I saw some people mention it online I hadn't noticed it... it's a summer blockbuster... who's watching for those sorts of technicalities?!
Our bad guy Brixton, portrayed by Idris Elba is... yummy. I don't feel like there's much to say about Brixton, he kicks ass, he's got great tech and there's a good history with Shaw... but... he didn't really feel like a bad guy. Eteon certainly felt like an evil empire, but Brixton is just a minion in the grand scheme of things. I have my theories about Eteon, but that would mean major spoilers I'm afraid. I imagine we'll see more of them in the next one.
We get another wonderful pop up from Helen Mirren. Yeeeeeess, Queen! She's brilliant as always. There are a few cameos, and I'm impressed they managed to keep them secret. It was a fun discovery and definitely added to the humour of the whole thing, had you taken them out of the mix then you would have been left a much more "sensible" action film, but they went with it and it was certainly entertaining.
Obviously there's a lot of action, in a lot of different scenes. As ridiculous as it is, I did like the London chase that happens shortly after the jog down the building that you see in the trailer. It includes some good jaw-dropping moments and ends with a particularly satisfying moment. As fun as this sequence was, it does include the most dubious bit of CGI in the whole film... watch for that bike.
My other favourite scene is the finale, the whole thing is kind of long but specifically I'm thinking about Hobbs, Shaw and Brixton facing off. Even before going into the film you know exactly what needs to happen to get to the resolution, so when they get to that point you're sat going "about time!" As the storm sets in we get an amazing sequence with slow-mo of the three of them fighting in the rain. It was immense... some may say daft, but that's totally why I turned up for it. There's also some great glitching of Brixton's tech that I thought worked really well with everything. My only issue is that there's one moment where Jason Statham appears to genuinely smile and it feels completely out of character.
There are some things I want to mention before I finish.
- There feels like a lot of product placement happening throughout, including for things that aren't even real products.
- You do not... I repeat... DO NOT drive by a Greggs without stopping for a chicken bake.
Let's face it, if you even remotely enjoy action and comedy together then you're going to be enjoying this movie. You don't need to switch your brain on to watch this, it's just pure entertainment.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/hobbs-shaw-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Welcome to Miami - again!
Will Smith seems to have been having a lacklustre period in his career. His genie from "Aladdin" got a rather lukewarm reception. And his last movie - "Gemini Man" - billed as a big summer blockbuster - failed to impress. True it wasn't a commercial disaster (raking in at the time of writing about 150% of budget), but it's still a film on a plane for me that, even if I'm bored, I'll say "nah" to.
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Perhaps it's for this reason that Smith reached for an old and reliable property to dust off for another outing.
And, do you know, it's not half bad.
I only recently saw this one, right at the end of its UK cinema run, because frankly it appealed to me like being hit round the head with a cold fish. Martin Lawrence is an actor who just grates on me enormously. I'm sure he's a lovely chap; kind to animals; donates to charity; etc - but I generally just don't find him funny. (Here though he has a killer line about condom use that made me chuckle.) It feels to me like he is on implausible ground here re-treading the role of aging detective Marcus Burnett. One look at Burnett lumbering along and you would think "well, he'd never pass the medical" for the on-street role he's portrayed doing. His buddy is detective Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), who has a sordid past that is set to catch up on him.
Since we start the story in Colombia, where Isabel Aretas (Kate Del Castillo), the witchy wife of a notorious deceased drug baron, is sprung from prison by her son Armando (Jacob Scipio) in what I admit is a clever and novel way. The Aretas family is bent on revenge - - and a key target in their sites is Lowrey.
Burnett is newly a grandparent and hell-bent on retirement. But with Lowrey and his associates with a target on their backs, will there be one last chance to "Ride Together, Die Together"?
Not seen the first two movies? Not to worry! There are movies, like LOTR, where if you've missed the first two movies in the series you will be left in serious "WTF" territory in trying to watch the third. This is not one of those movies. The story is entirely self-contained, and refers to events never seen prior to the first film in the series.
But whether the movie is for you will depend on your tolerance for loud and brash visuals and music with the knob turned up to 12. Directors Adil and Bilall (Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - Belgian film school buddies best known for the critically acclaimed 2015 feature "Black") - don't do anything by halves.
There is a scene in "Lost Series 3" in which Sawyer, Kate, and Alex have to bust young Karl out of the mysterious room 23 where he is being tortured by having his eyes kept open while watching a collage of images continually smashed into his eyeballs. This movie feels a little like that after a while.
This is not by any means a criticism that it's poorly done. There is some truly stunning cinematography of the Miami skyline by Belgian cinematographer Robrecht Heyvaert, including a 'pull-back' drone shot from a conversation on the top of a building that is quite AWESOME! And there are more than enough "fast action - then slo-mo - then fast again" shots to keep music-video junkies happy!
The music score by Lorne Balfe is also pumping, adding a dynamism to the frantic action scenes that keeps you entertained.
The screenplay by Chris Bremner, Peter Craig and Joe Carnahan is assuredly familiar: it's not going to win any prizes for originality. We've seen the cartel/revenge plotline played out in multiple movies over the years. And we've also seen the "buddy cops with aging partner taking retirement" angle from the "Lethal Weapon" series. This just sticks them together.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence wise-crack their way through the comedy well-enough, though for me it never reaches the heights of the pairing of Smith and Tommy Lee Jones from MiB (or indeed Mel Gibson and Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon). Elsewhere we have Vanessa Hudgens as a cute cop, still trying to break through from "Disneyfication" into mainstream flicks. For one horrible moment, when I saw her name on the cast, I thought she might be the love interest to Smith. But no. That honour goes to Mexican beauty Paola Nuñez who, with only a 10 year age gap, becomes a less gag-worthy pairing. She plays a female leadership role (every 20's film now needs one) as the head of a new crime division.
Also good value is Joe Pantoliano reprising his role as Captain Howard - Lowrie's exasperated boss. Playing it by the numbers, every film like this has to have one!
Where the plot does add some interest is in a surprising scene mid-film and a twist that I didn't see coming. But this twist felt - in the context of the release date or the film - like a mistake (a "Spoiler Section" in my review on the One Mann's Movies web site discusses this).
All of this happens of course against a backdrop of a body count of bad guys being killed in ever more graphic and gory ways, while the good guys generally dodge every bullet, grenade and crashing helicopter heading their way.
It's that time of year when films are released to die. Where studios drop their movies that are never going to trouble the Academy and are not deemed worthy of summer or even late spring release. But they should have had more faith in this one, for it's not half bad. True, you may need a couple of paracetamols afterwards, but if your corneas and ear-drums can stand the pace, its not short on entertainment value.
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies link here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-bad-boys-for-life-2020/ ).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.