Search
Search results
Kevin Phillipson (10072 KP) rated Marvel's Jessica Jones - Season 3 in TV
Dec 8, 2019 (Updated Dec 8, 2019)
Krysten Ritter (4 more)
Rachel Taylor
Carrie Anne moss
Eka Danville
Better than season 2
Contains spoilers, click to show
Only watched the first two episodes and already improvement over season 2. season 2 was weak but so far so good with the plot new villian but same old issues for Jessica especially her sister Trish who maybe becoming hellcat from the comic books I hope so just hoping the rest of the season is just as good
Georgia Hubley recommended Au Hasard Balthazar (1966) in Movies (curated)
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Nowhere Boy (2010) in Movies
Sep 11, 2020
Well acted
This is a film that has been fairly underrated and almost forgotten which I think is a shame, as it's actually a good film driven by some stellar performances.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson excels in this as John and he's what makes this film so good to watch. I always forget that he's actually English until I see him in a film with an English accent, but even still his scouse accent in this is pretty impressive. And the rest of the cast too from Anne-Marie Duff to Kristin Scott-Thomas (there's a load of double barrelled names in this!) all perform admirably in this. The story in this is probably what lets it down. Yes it's interesting to see what happened in John Lennon's early life and how The Beatles first came to be, but there are some aspects with his mum and aunt that get a little too soap opera-esque at times. Personally I wouldve preferred a little more concentration on the music side. And i know the era this film is set in, but I got sick of every scene featuring cigarettes and someone smoking. It was just so noticeable all the time that it became irritating.
Overall this is a pretty decent film about John Lennon's early life made better by some brilliant performances.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson excels in this as John and he's what makes this film so good to watch. I always forget that he's actually English until I see him in a film with an English accent, but even still his scouse accent in this is pretty impressive. And the rest of the cast too from Anne-Marie Duff to Kristin Scott-Thomas (there's a load of double barrelled names in this!) all perform admirably in this. The story in this is probably what lets it down. Yes it's interesting to see what happened in John Lennon's early life and how The Beatles first came to be, but there are some aspects with his mum and aunt that get a little too soap opera-esque at times. Personally I wouldve preferred a little more concentration on the music side. And i know the era this film is set in, but I got sick of every scene featuring cigarettes and someone smoking. It was just so noticeable all the time that it became irritating.
Overall this is a pretty decent film about John Lennon's early life made better by some brilliant performances.
The original is better
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing Emma into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, Emma is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of Emma has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as Mary Poppins or Nurse Matilda.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing Emma into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, Emma is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of Emma has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as Mary Poppins or Nurse Matilda.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing <i>Emma</i> into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, <i>Emma</i> is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of <i>Emma</i> has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as <i>Mary Poppins</i> or <i>Nurse Matilda</i>.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing <i>Emma</i> into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, <i>Emma</i> is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of <i>Emma</i> has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as <i>Mary Poppins</i> or <i>Nurse Matilda</i>.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Conjuring (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
It’s quite easy to think you have a ghost haunting your home. The creeks and cracks of settling foundation, leaky pipes, drafty windows or appliances can sound aerie. Why is it that our imaginations jump to that conclusion and not simply the truth. In some cases this causes people to essentially “cry wolf”, making it hard for us to believe in the true hauntings that have plagued families for generations. The Perron family was one of the many that had been terrorized by a malevolent spirit in their recently purchased farmhouse.
The story follows Ed and Lorraine Warren who’s lives have spent dealing with hundreds of cases of hauntings all around the US. From small hauntings to haunted items and more importantly exorcisms. The film begins with one of their possession cases that involves two young woman who were under the impression that they were being haunted by a little girl who took a likening to their Annabelle doll. They invited the girl to live inside of the doll not knowing that the entity was a daemon. (I do want to interject that the real Annabelle doll was a raggedy Anne doll but for the films sake they made the doll look like it was related to Chucky).
Annabelle is just an introduction to the audience of what Ed and Lorraine Warren do. One of their bigger cases is that of the Perron family. Roger (Ron Livingston), his wife Carolyn (Lili Taylor) and their five daughters move to an old farmhouse in a remote area not knowing the past of the land or the home itself. Ed and Lorraine agree to help the family exorcise their home, not realizing that the case was more dangerous than they had originally thought.
This film is by far the best true ghost story film that I have seen to date. Granted it has somewhat of a slow beginning, once the scares start happening it gets better and better. The acting was not the best nor the dialogue, however if you pay close attention to the story, those weaknesses of the film are easily forgotten. It is extremely refreshing to not see any CGI in a film like this and knowing that it can be as equally scary if not more with simple camera angles and excellent concepts. I also like the absence of blood and gore that has seen to be quite overdone with most horror films lately. The way that practical makeup was used to create such scary characters is only a small part of how much thought was put into this.
This film is scary and when I say that I really mean it. When I screened this, I was sitting in the middle of two big burley men who also jumped at every surprise. If you have been waiting for a film to scare you, this my friends will do it. It is definitely not for the faint of heart.
The story follows Ed and Lorraine Warren who’s lives have spent dealing with hundreds of cases of hauntings all around the US. From small hauntings to haunted items and more importantly exorcisms. The film begins with one of their possession cases that involves two young woman who were under the impression that they were being haunted by a little girl who took a likening to their Annabelle doll. They invited the girl to live inside of the doll not knowing that the entity was a daemon. (I do want to interject that the real Annabelle doll was a raggedy Anne doll but for the films sake they made the doll look like it was related to Chucky).
Annabelle is just an introduction to the audience of what Ed and Lorraine Warren do. One of their bigger cases is that of the Perron family. Roger (Ron Livingston), his wife Carolyn (Lili Taylor) and their five daughters move to an old farmhouse in a remote area not knowing the past of the land or the home itself. Ed and Lorraine agree to help the family exorcise their home, not realizing that the case was more dangerous than they had originally thought.
This film is by far the best true ghost story film that I have seen to date. Granted it has somewhat of a slow beginning, once the scares start happening it gets better and better. The acting was not the best nor the dialogue, however if you pay close attention to the story, those weaknesses of the film are easily forgotten. It is extremely refreshing to not see any CGI in a film like this and knowing that it can be as equally scary if not more with simple camera angles and excellent concepts. I also like the absence of blood and gore that has seen to be quite overdone with most horror films lately. The way that practical makeup was used to create such scary characters is only a small part of how much thought was put into this.
This film is scary and when I say that I really mean it. When I screened this, I was sitting in the middle of two big burley men who also jumped at every surprise. If you have been waiting for a film to scare you, this my friends will do it. It is definitely not for the faint of heart.
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated Mom and Dad (2018) in Movies
Jan 27, 2018
Nicholas Cage (2 more)
Great idea
Superb dialogue
Some damn fine fun with Cage and Blair
Contains spoilers, click to show
Two people who you should be able to count on for your safety as a child are your Mother and Father. But that doesn' ring true in this amazing little film by writer/director Brian Taylor.
The film's opening sequence shows a woman in a minivan with a baby in the backseat. The radio plays some strange static and out of nowhere she looks back to the infant and exits the vehicle. Leaving the baby and the van to meet their demise via an oncoming train.
What follows is pure genius and insanity that is topped by Nick Cage doing what Nick Cage does best. Losing it onscreen with a fever that only my he can provide.
Selma Blair holds her own as Cafe's seemingly mild mannered wife who turns on a dime and joins him in the craziness with a certain flair comparable to Cages insane bravado.
The kids, played by Anne Winters and Zachary Arthur, fight their parents with some Home Alonish antics that prove to serve them well.
No one can fully say what it is that officially makes the parents around the world turn on their kids. But it has something to do with white noise and static on televisions and radios across the planet. Parents instinct to protect their young like a bear is replaced with the feeling off ultimate anger and insanity.
In one scene, Blair is at the hospital coaching her sister through birth. The the is born and handed to the mother and a monitor goes all static filled and noisy. The sister clutches the baby tightly, beginnng to cut off the airwaves and choking the child. Blair rips the newborn from her sister in an attempt to protect her. But something driving her sister forces her to stand upright and destroy the baby. She ultimately fails and is sedated.
The best performance in this film goes hands down to Nicholas Cage. Who freaks out like only Cage can. And even though his appeaance resembles a slightly bloated version of Marilyn Manson. His ability to use his expression and booming voice to command insanity is off the charts amazing.
I recall a scene where the kids are locked in the basement trying to escape their folks. And Blair and Cage are looking for a way to break down the door. Nicholas bangs on the door, shaking and screaming a line i will never forget "Your motherfucking Mother said to open this goddamn door, Motherfuckers!!!! Youre going to open this motherfucking door!!!!". Cage goes one way Blair goes another... she gets a reciprocating saw and brings it to the door. Her line, while simple, is unforgettable. "It's called a Saws all because it saws all,".
She begins hacking and at the door as Cage is upstairs looking for his gun... he hears shots and runs downstairs, finding Blair sitting on the floor nursing a fresh gunshot to the arm. He freaks out and explains the gun to his wife who quotes some stats about kids hurting themselves and others with handguns. Irony at its finest.
All in all, this movie never gets boring after the parents begin to try and kill their kids. It's only better when Cages character Brent's folks show up and attempt to kill him. Lance Henricksons performance as the father is extreme and awesome.
Watch this movie if you have a spare 90 minutes, i promise you it will motherfucking not disappoint, Motherfuckers:)
The film's opening sequence shows a woman in a minivan with a baby in the backseat. The radio plays some strange static and out of nowhere she looks back to the infant and exits the vehicle. Leaving the baby and the van to meet their demise via an oncoming train.
What follows is pure genius and insanity that is topped by Nick Cage doing what Nick Cage does best. Losing it onscreen with a fever that only my he can provide.
Selma Blair holds her own as Cafe's seemingly mild mannered wife who turns on a dime and joins him in the craziness with a certain flair comparable to Cages insane bravado.
The kids, played by Anne Winters and Zachary Arthur, fight their parents with some Home Alonish antics that prove to serve them well.
No one can fully say what it is that officially makes the parents around the world turn on their kids. But it has something to do with white noise and static on televisions and radios across the planet. Parents instinct to protect their young like a bear is replaced with the feeling off ultimate anger and insanity.
In one scene, Blair is at the hospital coaching her sister through birth. The the is born and handed to the mother and a monitor goes all static filled and noisy. The sister clutches the baby tightly, beginnng to cut off the airwaves and choking the child. Blair rips the newborn from her sister in an attempt to protect her. But something driving her sister forces her to stand upright and destroy the baby. She ultimately fails and is sedated.
The best performance in this film goes hands down to Nicholas Cage. Who freaks out like only Cage can. And even though his appeaance resembles a slightly bloated version of Marilyn Manson. His ability to use his expression and booming voice to command insanity is off the charts amazing.
I recall a scene where the kids are locked in the basement trying to escape their folks. And Blair and Cage are looking for a way to break down the door. Nicholas bangs on the door, shaking and screaming a line i will never forget "Your motherfucking Mother said to open this goddamn door, Motherfuckers!!!! Youre going to open this motherfucking door!!!!". Cage goes one way Blair goes another... she gets a reciprocating saw and brings it to the door. Her line, while simple, is unforgettable. "It's called a Saws all because it saws all,".
She begins hacking and at the door as Cage is upstairs looking for his gun... he hears shots and runs downstairs, finding Blair sitting on the floor nursing a fresh gunshot to the arm. He freaks out and explains the gun to his wife who quotes some stats about kids hurting themselves and others with handguns. Irony at its finest.
All in all, this movie never gets boring after the parents begin to try and kill their kids. It's only better when Cages character Brent's folks show up and attempt to kill him. Lance Henricksons performance as the father is extreme and awesome.
Watch this movie if you have a spare 90 minutes, i promise you it will motherfucking not disappoint, Motherfuckers:)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
This IS the Greatest Show!
I sometimes wonder how “proper” UK film critics view films early for review. Is there a ‘special screening’ which all the film critics attend in London? The point I’m getting at is whether the collective critical opinion of a movie can be swayed by a critic leaping to their feet and wildly applauding a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” or, alternatively, snorting in derision at a film like “The Greatest Showman”. For sometimes the critics seem to get it massively wrong across the board, panning a film that the general public will adore. Unfortunately, this has the effect of putting the general public off seeing it, especially in the lethargic post-Christmas period. I think here is a case in point. It’s not the best little film in the world, but as a musical crowd-pleaser it delivers in spades.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.