Search
Search results
Erika (17788 KP) rated Hamnet in Books
Jan 10, 2021
Hamnet was the 1st book I read in 2020 that was named after the son, but, in reality, the entire book is about the mother.
Hamnet is the story of an little, unknown playwright's son, who died of the plague. Just kidding, the playwright is obviously Shakespeare, but he is never named. Which is fine with me, he wasn't the focus.
Nothing much is really known about Hamnet, the author did some extensive research, and created the series of events. I thought they were all plausible, and I always appreciate a heavily researched historical fiction novel.
In truth, the focus of the novel is on Anne Hathaway, called Agnes in this novel. It's possible her true name was Agnes, rather than Anne. Now, I had a slight problem with the character of Agnes in general. This was the major negative in the book for me, I feel as though the woman in the woods, is she or isn't she a witch situation is getting overplayed way too much. Now, I see it as the equivalent as the manic pixie dream girl. I understand this woman of the woods trope is to empower the female characters, but it's just too familiar at this point.
I feel mostly that every book I read is predictable, when you read over 100 books a year, it's hard not to predict the ending. Is it necessarily a bad thing? Of course it's not, but that coupled with the manic pixie woman of the woods is why I can't rate this higher than good.
I have to add that one of my favorite parts, that was probably really unnecessary, was the journey of the plague-carrying flea. I thought it was amusing, and kind of odd.
I can definitely see why this book was up for prizes, and I'm sure to the casual reader, it was better than good.
Hamnet is the story of an little, unknown playwright's son, who died of the plague. Just kidding, the playwright is obviously Shakespeare, but he is never named. Which is fine with me, he wasn't the focus.
Nothing much is really known about Hamnet, the author did some extensive research, and created the series of events. I thought they were all plausible, and I always appreciate a heavily researched historical fiction novel.
In truth, the focus of the novel is on Anne Hathaway, called Agnes in this novel. It's possible her true name was Agnes, rather than Anne. Now, I had a slight problem with the character of Agnes in general. This was the major negative in the book for me, I feel as though the woman in the woods, is she or isn't she a witch situation is getting overplayed way too much. Now, I see it as the equivalent as the manic pixie dream girl. I understand this woman of the woods trope is to empower the female characters, but it's just too familiar at this point.
I feel mostly that every book I read is predictable, when you read over 100 books a year, it's hard not to predict the ending. Is it necessarily a bad thing? Of course it's not, but that coupled with the manic pixie woman of the woods is why I can't rate this higher than good.
I have to add that one of my favorite parts, that was probably really unnecessary, was the journey of the plague-carrying flea. I thought it was amusing, and kind of odd.
I can definitely see why this book was up for prizes, and I'm sure to the casual reader, it was better than good.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Devil Wears Prada (2006) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I was watching The Devil Wears Prada the other day on ITV2 and forgot just how brilliant a film it is, it really did exceed expectations back then in 2006 and even now in 2011. Here’s the review I wrote all those years ago. Enjoy!
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Gloria (Anne Hathaway) is out all night drinking and comes home to her boyfriend Tim (Dan Stevens). Tim is headed to work and tired of Gloria’s partying ways. He’s packed her bags and tells her to not be there when he comes home from work. With no job, no place to live, and her life seemingly in at its low point she decided to go back to her home town. She is able to stay in her childhood home which is empty and she finds herself sleeping on the floor. Gloria heads out to get an air mattress to make her a little more comfortable. On her way back she runs into a childhood friend Oscar (Jason Sudeikis). He invites her to the bar he owns and despite the fact drinking ruined her relationship and is the reason she finds herself in this position she agrees.
Gloria winds up spending all night drinking with Oscar and his buddies. She stumbles home and passes out. She is awoken the next day by a phone call telling her about a giant monster that has appeared in Seoul. Gloria, Oscar and his two friends (Tim Blake and Austin Stowell) meet up again that night to talk about the Earth shaking event and wind up drinking all night, again. Gloria wakes up in the morning and again the monster appears in Seoul. It showed up at the exact time and the exact same spot in Seoul. As Gloria watches the footage of the newest sighting a strange thing occurs, the monster scratches its head in a very familiar way. Ever since Gloria was little she had a tick of scratching the top of her head in a particular way. Now on TV the monster is doing the same thing. She looks at the footage from the last sighting and notices that the monster looks to be carrying something, exactly like she was carrying the mattress she bought the morning before through the park. Is she the monster? If she is why is it only appearing in Seoul?
Colossal is a very interesting and original take on the “monster” movie. I hesitate to describe any more of the movie in the narrative because I really was surprised by the direction the movie took and think anyone why watches it should not have a preconceived idea of what is going to happen. Anne Hathaway and Jason Sudeikis are real good. Sudeikis really surprised me in his role. It wasn’t his typical character and I thought he played it really well. The supporting cast is okay but not particularly memorable. But the story really was focused on the two main characters. I thought the film was funny and dark. I definitely laughed throughout the film. There were times I questioned where the story was going. It didn’t transition from one point to the next very well. But I thought it did a good job of bringing everything together in the end. The visuals were good but not great but that is to be expected with an independent film. Another thing I will remember from this film was the soundtrack. The music seem to really follow the tone of the movie well.
This is a movie I will definitely find myself watching again. The story was interesting and, minus some sloppy plot transitions, was really well done.
Gloria winds up spending all night drinking with Oscar and his buddies. She stumbles home and passes out. She is awoken the next day by a phone call telling her about a giant monster that has appeared in Seoul. Gloria, Oscar and his two friends (Tim Blake and Austin Stowell) meet up again that night to talk about the Earth shaking event and wind up drinking all night, again. Gloria wakes up in the morning and again the monster appears in Seoul. It showed up at the exact time and the exact same spot in Seoul. As Gloria watches the footage of the newest sighting a strange thing occurs, the monster scratches its head in a very familiar way. Ever since Gloria was little she had a tick of scratching the top of her head in a particular way. Now on TV the monster is doing the same thing. She looks at the footage from the last sighting and notices that the monster looks to be carrying something, exactly like she was carrying the mattress she bought the morning before through the park. Is she the monster? If she is why is it only appearing in Seoul?
Colossal is a very interesting and original take on the “monster” movie. I hesitate to describe any more of the movie in the narrative because I really was surprised by the direction the movie took and think anyone why watches it should not have a preconceived idea of what is going to happen. Anne Hathaway and Jason Sudeikis are real good. Sudeikis really surprised me in his role. It wasn’t his typical character and I thought he played it really well. The supporting cast is okay but not particularly memorable. But the story really was focused on the two main characters. I thought the film was funny and dark. I definitely laughed throughout the film. There were times I questioned where the story was going. It didn’t transition from one point to the next very well. But I thought it did a good job of bringing everything together in the end. The visuals were good but not great but that is to be expected with an independent film. Another thing I will remember from this film was the soundtrack. The music seem to really follow the tone of the movie well.
This is a movie I will definitely find myself watching again. The story was interesting and, minus some sloppy plot transitions, was really well done.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Dark Waters (2019) in Movies
Dec 19, 2019
What Lies Within Inside
How come no one is talking about this, how come no one has seen this movie. People should know about this movie and see it, cause it is powerful, epic, sicken, disturbing, and over a phenomenal movie with a message.
The Plot: A tenacious attorney uncovers a dark secret that connects a growing number of unexplained deaths to one of the world's largest corporations. While trying to expose the truth, he soon finds himself risking his future, his family and his own life.
It is based on the 2016 article "The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare" by Nathaniel Rich, published in The New York Times Magazine.
Parts of the story were also reported by Mariah Blake, whose 2015 article, "Welcome to Beautiful Parkersburg, West Virginia" was a National Magazine Award finalist, and Sharon Lerner, whose series "Bad Chemistry" ran in The Intercept. Robert Bilott, the principal character in the film, also wrote a memoir, Exposure, detailing his 20-year legal battle against DuPon.
Mark Rufflo does a fantastic job in this film and so does Anne Hathaway and Tom Robbins.
Its really sad that not aot of people know about this story, its also sad that no alot people seen this movie, that no one is talking about, cause like I sais before it is disturbing and sicken. Makes you think what else are companies and coperorations are hidden for us.
This movie is my 3rd favorite film that i have seen this year, right behind Endgame and Joker. A must see if you havent seen it or know about it.
The Plot: A tenacious attorney uncovers a dark secret that connects a growing number of unexplained deaths to one of the world's largest corporations. While trying to expose the truth, he soon finds himself risking his future, his family and his own life.
It is based on the 2016 article "The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare" by Nathaniel Rich, published in The New York Times Magazine.
Parts of the story were also reported by Mariah Blake, whose 2015 article, "Welcome to Beautiful Parkersburg, West Virginia" was a National Magazine Award finalist, and Sharon Lerner, whose series "Bad Chemistry" ran in The Intercept. Robert Bilott, the principal character in the film, also wrote a memoir, Exposure, detailing his 20-year legal battle against DuPon.
Mark Rufflo does a fantastic job in this film and so does Anne Hathaway and Tom Robbins.
Its really sad that not aot of people know about this story, its also sad that no alot people seen this movie, that no one is talking about, cause like I sais before it is disturbing and sicken. Makes you think what else are companies and coperorations are hidden for us.
This movie is my 3rd favorite film that i have seen this year, right behind Endgame and Joker. A must see if you havent seen it or know about it.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Witches (2020) in Movies
Mar 6, 2021
Not a patch on the original
The Witches is a 2020 retelling of the Roald Dahl children’s story, from director Robert Zemeckis. Remakes and reboots have been commonplace in the movies for quite some time, so it’s no surprise that The Witches has been given a Hollywood makeover, especially as it has been 30 years since the original film adaptation was released in 1990. I will readily admit that the original film is a childhood favourite, so this remake has very big shows to fill.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
Colossal is written and directed by Nacho Vigalondo, who also wrote and directed 2007’s Timecrimes. One of my favourite movies and probably the best movie about time travel that isn’t Back to the Future! So, I’d been looking forward to catching this, his latest movie, for a while now. Luckily, it didn’t disappoint.
Anne Hathaway is Gloria, a 30-something party girl whose life is in a serious downward spiral. Her boyfriend (an underused Dan Stevens) decides that enough is enough and kicks her out of his New York apartment. So, Gloria moves back to the quiet little town where she grew up and moves into her parents empty house in an attempt to try and rebuild her life. After a bad nights sleep on the bare floor (a nice running joke throughout the movie), she heads out to buy an inflatable mattress and on the way back is passed by Oscar (Jason Sudeikis) in his pickup truck, who pulls up and offers her a ride. It turns out that Oscar and Grace are old school friends and as they get talking about old times it transpires that things aren’t so great for Oscar these days either. He takes her to the bar he inherited from his father, only half renovated due to a lack of money, and later on offers Gloria a waitress job. Most of their time in the bar though seems to be spent after hours, drinking away the stock with a couple of other friends/barflies. Gloria is soon back to blacking out from drink and then waking up at some point the next day with vague memories of the night before.
And then one morning Gloria wakes to images on TV of a giant Godzilla-like creature which suddenly materialised and started rampaging through Seoul in South Korea. Furthermore, after a few more appearances by this creature, Gloria comes to the realisation that this creature somehow appears to be copying her movements! And a bit later on, a giant robot appears too!!
It’s difficult to elaborate on this part of the movie much further without going into serious spoiler territory. The whole idea sounds crazy, but it’s surprising just how quickly the whole concept just settles in and this remains primarily a movie about humans, our relationships and our inner demons. Hathaway and Sudeikis are at their best here, with Sudeikis progressing from his usual likeable slacker role into something much more darker and complex. Things become increasingly tense, culminating in a highly original and hugely satisfying final act which I absolutely loved. It’s truly amazing what’s been achieved here with such a low budget too, with only a few occasions where the effects appear a little shaky. Overall though, this is a smart must-see movie. Brilliant.
Anne Hathaway is Gloria, a 30-something party girl whose life is in a serious downward spiral. Her boyfriend (an underused Dan Stevens) decides that enough is enough and kicks her out of his New York apartment. So, Gloria moves back to the quiet little town where she grew up and moves into her parents empty house in an attempt to try and rebuild her life. After a bad nights sleep on the bare floor (a nice running joke throughout the movie), she heads out to buy an inflatable mattress and on the way back is passed by Oscar (Jason Sudeikis) in his pickup truck, who pulls up and offers her a ride. It turns out that Oscar and Grace are old school friends and as they get talking about old times it transpires that things aren’t so great for Oscar these days either. He takes her to the bar he inherited from his father, only half renovated due to a lack of money, and later on offers Gloria a waitress job. Most of their time in the bar though seems to be spent after hours, drinking away the stock with a couple of other friends/barflies. Gloria is soon back to blacking out from drink and then waking up at some point the next day with vague memories of the night before.
And then one morning Gloria wakes to images on TV of a giant Godzilla-like creature which suddenly materialised and started rampaging through Seoul in South Korea. Furthermore, after a few more appearances by this creature, Gloria comes to the realisation that this creature somehow appears to be copying her movements! And a bit later on, a giant robot appears too!!
It’s difficult to elaborate on this part of the movie much further without going into serious spoiler territory. The whole idea sounds crazy, but it’s surprising just how quickly the whole concept just settles in and this remains primarily a movie about humans, our relationships and our inner demons. Hathaway and Sudeikis are at their best here, with Sudeikis progressing from his usual likeable slacker role into something much more darker and complex. Things become increasingly tense, culminating in a highly original and hugely satisfying final act which I absolutely loved. It’s truly amazing what’s been achieved here with such a low budget too, with only a few occasions where the effects appear a little shaky. Overall though, this is a smart must-see movie. Brilliant.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Can 8 women do the work of 11, 12 or even 13 men?
The female empowerment #SheToo implications of the title are clearly writ large for this movie! The answer of course…. is a major spoiler, so we won’t go there.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Witches (2020) in Movies
Mar 14, 2021
Well, here we are... I'm not really sure I remember the original, but I suspect that's a bit of a blessing.
When a young boy encounters a strange and frightening woman his grandmother tells him about the existence of witches. In an attempt to hide from the woman, they take a trip that accidentally drops them in the middle of a witch convention led by the Grand High Witch.
At 1 hour 46 the witches feels like a short film to watch, but on reflection that runtime seems incredibly long for what was actually presented. The opening feels long, while somehow empty. There's obviously a need to get the backstory out, but I'm not sure I enjoyed the Chris Rock voiceover combined with the condensed story from Grandma.
I don't think there's a whole lot to grumble about with the storyline, witches exist, they hate children, plan to obliterate them all... blah blah blah. While I'm not entirely convinced there's a place for some of Roald Dahl's stories these days, but this sort of kids in peril and magic plots are fairly easy ones to get along with.
I love seeing Octavia Spencer in things, though I refuse to accept her as a grandmother. There were some moments with her that I really enjoyed, but there were quite a few scenes where the reactions didn't feel right for the situation. This wasn't something isolated to Spencer's performance, a combination of odd script and strangely edited transitions and effects left me with a lot of moments to pause.
Jahzir Bruno as Hero Boy was very good once the setting moved to the hotel, and I loved his reactions to hearing his gran explaining how to identify a witch.
Let's talk about the Grand High Witch shall we? Anne Hathaway definitely felt like the only one who was all in on their performance... and that's maybe the only positive thing I have to say about it. It was so incredibly difficult to understand what was being said half of the time, you can take an educated guess, but that doesn't really help when you're watching a film.
While all the witches have effects on them it's mainly Hathaway that had the screen time with it. As a scary creation it's pretty good, the mouth and teeth give a very sinister vibe... but at times I felt like it was overused. There were times when the effects really shone. The Grand High Witch's features looked spookily realistic, and here movements flowed seamlessly. But then you got the throwing of objects, and the animals, and it falls apart. The cat in particular reminded me of early, dubious, Harry Potter effects. (And that's not the only Harry Potter element I felt, there are strong Dudley vibes too.)
This reimagining of The Witches may have enough rodent action and face-pulling for the kids to get some enjoyment out of it, but this empty feeling film left me with little to remember apart from the negatives.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-witches-movie-review.html
When a young boy encounters a strange and frightening woman his grandmother tells him about the existence of witches. In an attempt to hide from the woman, they take a trip that accidentally drops them in the middle of a witch convention led by the Grand High Witch.
At 1 hour 46 the witches feels like a short film to watch, but on reflection that runtime seems incredibly long for what was actually presented. The opening feels long, while somehow empty. There's obviously a need to get the backstory out, but I'm not sure I enjoyed the Chris Rock voiceover combined with the condensed story from Grandma.
I don't think there's a whole lot to grumble about with the storyline, witches exist, they hate children, plan to obliterate them all... blah blah blah. While I'm not entirely convinced there's a place for some of Roald Dahl's stories these days, but this sort of kids in peril and magic plots are fairly easy ones to get along with.
I love seeing Octavia Spencer in things, though I refuse to accept her as a grandmother. There were some moments with her that I really enjoyed, but there were quite a few scenes where the reactions didn't feel right for the situation. This wasn't something isolated to Spencer's performance, a combination of odd script and strangely edited transitions and effects left me with a lot of moments to pause.
Jahzir Bruno as Hero Boy was very good once the setting moved to the hotel, and I loved his reactions to hearing his gran explaining how to identify a witch.
Let's talk about the Grand High Witch shall we? Anne Hathaway definitely felt like the only one who was all in on their performance... and that's maybe the only positive thing I have to say about it. It was so incredibly difficult to understand what was being said half of the time, you can take an educated guess, but that doesn't really help when you're watching a film.
While all the witches have effects on them it's mainly Hathaway that had the screen time with it. As a scary creation it's pretty good, the mouth and teeth give a very sinister vibe... but at times I felt like it was overused. There were times when the effects really shone. The Grand High Witch's features looked spookily realistic, and here movements flowed seamlessly. But then you got the throwing of objects, and the animals, and it falls apart. The cat in particular reminded me of early, dubious, Harry Potter effects. (And that's not the only Harry Potter element I felt, there are strong Dudley vibes too.)
This reimagining of The Witches may have enough rodent action and face-pulling for the kids to get some enjoyment out of it, but this empty feeling film left me with little to remember apart from the negatives.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-witches-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
About to take her place as a lady of civilized society, Alice is having trouble fitting in with the expectations of the world around her. How will she ever fit in with her wondering mind and regular dreams of a fantasyland filled with magic, creatures, and more than a tea pot filled with nonsense.
Tim Burton’s new live action “Alice in Wonderland” takes us past the tale of the animated Disney classic and into an even more vivid plot-filled adventure. The film merges elements from both of Lewis Carroll’s much beloved tomes, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There”. For those who do not know the books, the new live action film will introduce you to characters not encountered in the original Disney film. Those who have patiently waited to see their favorite characters on the screen will delight in the precise details; from the wild environment to the strategic use of literary quotes.
As much as it is a visual spectacle filled with eye-popping clothing, explosive color, and delightful dialogue, where “Alice in Wonderland” most impresses is in characters. The most familiar characters, the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), the Cheshire Cat (voice by Stephen Fry) and The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), are zanier, more charming, and definitely madder then ever before. And new characters such as the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) and Knave of Hearts (Crispin Glover) also captivate and amuse. In fact, audiences will be hard pressed to choose a favorite character let alone scene.
Viewers who opt to see the film in the intended 3D (better still in IMAX 3D) will be highly rewarded; the effects are engrossing straight down to credits. For those who forgo the additional dimension “Alice in Wonderland” is so well plotted that even without the bells and whistles it will prove to be exceptional.
A must for an Alice fan of any age and a delight for anyone with a strong imagination, “Alice in Wonderland” blows past the dreary expectations by bringing curiosity and nonsense back to the big screen.
Tim Burton’s new live action “Alice in Wonderland” takes us past the tale of the animated Disney classic and into an even more vivid plot-filled adventure. The film merges elements from both of Lewis Carroll’s much beloved tomes, “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There”. For those who do not know the books, the new live action film will introduce you to characters not encountered in the original Disney film. Those who have patiently waited to see their favorite characters on the screen will delight in the precise details; from the wild environment to the strategic use of literary quotes.
As much as it is a visual spectacle filled with eye-popping clothing, explosive color, and delightful dialogue, where “Alice in Wonderland” most impresses is in characters. The most familiar characters, the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), the Cheshire Cat (voice by Stephen Fry) and The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), are zanier, more charming, and definitely madder then ever before. And new characters such as the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) and Knave of Hearts (Crispin Glover) also captivate and amuse. In fact, audiences will be hard pressed to choose a favorite character let alone scene.
Viewers who opt to see the film in the intended 3D (better still in IMAX 3D) will be highly rewarded; the effects are engrossing straight down to credits. For those who forgo the additional dimension “Alice in Wonderland” is so well plotted that even without the bells and whistles it will prove to be exceptional.
A must for an Alice fan of any age and a delight for anyone with a strong imagination, “Alice in Wonderland” blows past the dreary expectations by bringing curiosity and nonsense back to the big screen.
