Search
Search results
Kevin Phillipson (10018 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Jan 22, 2019
Lee (2222 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Apr 10, 2018 (Updated Apr 10, 2018)
Sadly I missed out on seeing Ghost Stories on stage when it played in London's West End a few years ago. By all accounts it was a hugely enjoyable and genuinely scary experience, which I would have loved!
The movie version is written by the guys behind the stage show. Jeremy Dyson (co-creator and writer of the brilliant 'League of Gentlemen' shows) and Andy Nyman (co-writer of some of Derren Brown's TV and stage shows), so if you're familiar with any of their work then you'll have an idea what you're in for.
Nyman also stars in the movie as cynical Philip Goodman, host of 'Psychic Cheats' - a TV show which sets out to debunk the con-men who prey on vulnerable people who are grieving for their lost loved ones. Goodman is now investigating three 'unexplained' cases, stories involving three men (Paul Whitehouse, Alex Lawther and Martin Freeman) who have all been deeply affected by an unexplained supernatural experience in their past. Nyman meets with each of them in turn, and they then recount their stories for us to enjoy.
The stories themselves work extremely well. The whole movie is set in a even drearier than usual England, and this dark and depressing setting only adds to the tension that gradually builds as each story unfolds. While the stories themselves aren't too scary, good use of sound and camera work really help to make things pretty unsettling and creepy. There are some obligatory jump scares along the way, and even some laugh out loud moments too.
Outside of the stories being told, strange things begin happening to too. This all builds to a bit of a WTF?! moment, which then begins unraveling nicely, piecing together parts of the movie and building to a very satisfying and enjoyable ending.
The movie version is written by the guys behind the stage show. Jeremy Dyson (co-creator and writer of the brilliant 'League of Gentlemen' shows) and Andy Nyman (co-writer of some of Derren Brown's TV and stage shows), so if you're familiar with any of their work then you'll have an idea what you're in for.
Nyman also stars in the movie as cynical Philip Goodman, host of 'Psychic Cheats' - a TV show which sets out to debunk the con-men who prey on vulnerable people who are grieving for their lost loved ones. Goodman is now investigating three 'unexplained' cases, stories involving three men (Paul Whitehouse, Alex Lawther and Martin Freeman) who have all been deeply affected by an unexplained supernatural experience in their past. Nyman meets with each of them in turn, and they then recount their stories for us to enjoy.
The stories themselves work extremely well. The whole movie is set in a even drearier than usual England, and this dark and depressing setting only adds to the tension that gradually builds as each story unfolds. While the stories themselves aren't too scary, good use of sound and camera work really help to make things pretty unsettling and creepy. There are some obligatory jump scares along the way, and even some laugh out loud moments too.
Outside of the stories being told, strange things begin happening to too. This all builds to a bit of a WTF?! moment, which then begins unraveling nicely, piecing together parts of the movie and building to a very satisfying and enjoyable ending.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In that sleep of death, what dreams may come.
“Ghost Stories” is based on the spooky London West-End stage play by Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman who both write and direct the film version. I didn’t know this until the end credits, but began to wonder in the final act where the action suddenly becomes very “stagey” in nature. The screenplay was always bound to be both bizarre and intriguing, since Dyson has been a past contributor to TV’s “League of Gentlemen” and other equally surreal programmes and Nyman has been a major collaborator with the stage-illusionist Derren Brown.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Nyman himself plays TV paranormal debunker Professor Goodman who receives a surprise message from a respected colleague, long thought dead, who on his death bed wants Goodman to investigate the three cases from his career that he was never able to debunk. The first concerns Tony Matthews (Paul Whitehouse, “The Death of Stalin“) as a night watchman at a spooky old asylum; the second concerns Simon Rifkind (Alex Lawther, young Turing in “The Imitation Game“) as a freaked-out young man with a forest breakdown; and Mike Priddle (Martin Freeman, “Black Panther“) as a rich broker with parenting issues. As Goodman investigates each case weirder and weirder things start to happen: is this his mind playing tricks as his faith is rocked, or is there something more sinister going on?
The primary issue I have with this film is its portmanteau nature, harking back to similar films like “The Twilight Zone: the Movie”. Having three segments, loosely linked together, feels like a clunky device for a feature film…. (“Why are there three cases to investigate? Well, two would have made the film too short, and four would have made it too long!”).
That being said, the overall story arc and the drawing together of the strands for the unexpected (although not terribly original) conclusion, is intriguing.
The film looks and feels like a British-made horror film, which is both a compliment and a criticism. Who doesn’t like the jump-scares and the vague tackiness of a Hammer horror? But if you care to compare the production values on show here versus “A Quiet Place“, there is no comparison. The location-shot scenes (which are most of the scenes) seem to be very poorly lit: and that’s the non-spooky ones where you are supposed to see what’s going on!
The cast seem to be well-suited to their roles, with Paul Whitehouse in particular being impressive as the ‘on the make’ Matthews, who always feels like being on the knife-edge of violent outburst. I particularly liked Alex Lawther who does “spooked” extremely well! The script also seems to be well-tuned to the characters, with a number of laugh-out-loud lines. “****ing O2” exclaims Simon as he waves his mobile in the air… something the marketing department at the telecoms giant must have loved!
The critics seem to have been overtly positive about this film, which I can’t quite match. Apart from one or two scenes towards the end, all of the jump scares were pretty well signposted in advance. But it’s still as fun as a slightly tacky ghost house ride at the fairground, if you like that sort of thing, and is certainly a much more interesting and better watch in my book than some recent and much higher budget horror films like “It“.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
There's a definite fatigue now with films based on music stars and their works, I was already feeling it earlier in the year with Yesterday and Blinded By The Light. While I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about seeing Judy the trailer had me as soon as I heard "Somewhere over the rainbow".
Judy, once a household name, is short on money and her reputation is making it hard to get the work she needs. As her welcome at hotels is no longer guaranteed and her ex-husband's concern for what sort of life she's giving their children grows she realises she needs to find a way to make enough money to get them a proper home.
Her answer lies in England with nightly sellout performances to the crowds. But as the loneliness and isolation set in it might be that her not so glamorous lifestyle has caught up with her.
As with many real life depictions I came out wanting to know what was true to Garland's actual life and what was added with artistic license. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is just how accurate it is, the bullying, the abuse, the drugs, it shows a shocking side of Hollywood as it brought up its young stars. It was a little sad to find out that my two favourite bits of the film were probably the only bits in the whole thing that weren't based on actual events, but when you think about it that's not a bad statistic.
Renée Zellweger is outstanding. A year of vocal training before even getting to the set and being able to deliver such a stellar singing performance while simultaneously having to act like you're high on pills, exhaustion and drink... I'm genuinely amazed when I think back to some moments in the film.
I didn't get that same rush from listening to her singing in the film as I did in the trailer. She's wonderful performing the songs but I just felt that everything around the songs was too much of a distraction from it.
Yes, there are other people in Judy beyond Renée Zellweger but I'm not sure that there was anything to them that could shine as much as she did. Jessie Buckley felt underused, and after seeing Wild Rose earlier this year it was sad to see her so close to a stage without her getting to sing. I thought Andy Nyman made a good show as Dan, one half of the gay couple Judy befriends, the emotion that ran through his scenes with her had me wrecked.
I felt a little thrown by the flashbacks initially, but the drip feeding of scenes from her life as we progressed through the modern part of the story worked well. Each reveal would make you a little more heartbroken and concerned for adult Judy, the balance was perfect.
From the glamorous hotels to the dark night streets of London I thought all the settings were chosen well. The design overall with the costumes and sets felt spot on too. Seeing images of the cast against their real life counterparts really gives you pause to think about how hard everyone on that film worked to make the perfect shot.
There aren't all that many drawbacks here, apart from the fatigue for this sort of film that I mentioned earlier it felt very much like I've seen this film before. The recent biopic Stan & Ollie has so many similar features and scenarios that Judy ended up feeling like it wasn't such a new release. Despite that I did enjoy it, I just wish there had been more songs in it, I'm a sucker for a good tune.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/judy-movie-review.html
Judy, once a household name, is short on money and her reputation is making it hard to get the work she needs. As her welcome at hotels is no longer guaranteed and her ex-husband's concern for what sort of life she's giving their children grows she realises she needs to find a way to make enough money to get them a proper home.
Her answer lies in England with nightly sellout performances to the crowds. But as the loneliness and isolation set in it might be that her not so glamorous lifestyle has caught up with her.
As with many real life depictions I came out wanting to know what was true to Garland's actual life and what was added with artistic license. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is just how accurate it is, the bullying, the abuse, the drugs, it shows a shocking side of Hollywood as it brought up its young stars. It was a little sad to find out that my two favourite bits of the film were probably the only bits in the whole thing that weren't based on actual events, but when you think about it that's not a bad statistic.
Renée Zellweger is outstanding. A year of vocal training before even getting to the set and being able to deliver such a stellar singing performance while simultaneously having to act like you're high on pills, exhaustion and drink... I'm genuinely amazed when I think back to some moments in the film.
I didn't get that same rush from listening to her singing in the film as I did in the trailer. She's wonderful performing the songs but I just felt that everything around the songs was too much of a distraction from it.
Yes, there are other people in Judy beyond Renée Zellweger but I'm not sure that there was anything to them that could shine as much as she did. Jessie Buckley felt underused, and after seeing Wild Rose earlier this year it was sad to see her so close to a stage without her getting to sing. I thought Andy Nyman made a good show as Dan, one half of the gay couple Judy befriends, the emotion that ran through his scenes with her had me wrecked.
I felt a little thrown by the flashbacks initially, but the drip feeding of scenes from her life as we progressed through the modern part of the story worked well. Each reveal would make you a little more heartbroken and concerned for adult Judy, the balance was perfect.
From the glamorous hotels to the dark night streets of London I thought all the settings were chosen well. The design overall with the costumes and sets felt spot on too. Seeing images of the cast against their real life counterparts really gives you pause to think about how hard everyone on that film worked to make the perfect shot.
There aren't all that many drawbacks here, apart from the fatigue for this sort of film that I mentioned earlier it felt very much like I've seen this film before. The recent biopic Stan & Ollie has so many similar features and scenarios that Judy ended up feeling like it wasn't such a new release. Despite that I did enjoy it, I just wish there had been more songs in it, I'm a sucker for a good tune.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/judy-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.