Search
Search results
Inner Perspectives: Guideposts for the Spiritual Journey
3.0
Rate It
Podcast
Elizabeth Clare Prophet, modern mystic and pioneer in New Age spirituality, answers more than 300...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Jan 7, 2021
Good companion piece to CITIZEN KANE
Orson Welles’ 1941 masterpiece CITIZEN KANE is truly a remarkable work of art (especially for the time it was created) and it regularly lands in either the #1 or #2 spot on my list of all-time favorite films (battling back and forth with THE GODFATHER - the one that ends up at #1 is usually the one I have watched most recently), so I am a sucker for films that are about (or around) the making of this classic.
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated A Battle of Onin in Tabletop Games
Feb 9, 2021
I am a big fan of Asian culture and board game theming. Now, I am not at all versed in Anime, nor am I an aficionado. I just enjoy Asian people, history, cultures, food, and board game themes. That said, when I learned of A Battle for Onin I knew I wanted to take a look at it, being as it was touted as familiar mechanics with an Asian theme. So how does it play?
A Battle for Onin is a trick-taking card game where players will be using Shoguns, Ninjas, Samurai, and Monks as suits and each suit will have differing levels of hierarchy. The first player to earn 35 total influence (VP) will claim victory.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup shuffle the deck of cards and deal each player 13 cards. The dealer then flips the top card of the deck and becomes the Ruling Class (trump) for the hand. The game is now setup and ready to begin!\
After the Ruling Class has been revealed, the player left of the dealer will make a bid for how many Conscriptions (tricks) they believe they will take in the round, with a minimum bid of 3 tricks for all players. Each other player will do the same until the leading player’s turn comes back around. That player then proceeds to play cards from hand in attempt to win tricks. Like in most trick-taking games player will need to follow the suit that was led (or flipped at the beginning of the round). A twist here is that trump may not be led until it has been used to win a trick previously within the round.
As mentioned earlier, each suit has a hierarchy of power, where Bronze is the lowest in power increasing to Silver, then to Gold, and finally to Jade. Within these divisions are yet three more classifications of power: one sphere (lowest) to three spheres (most powerful). In addition still is one card from each suit whose background is orange in color and features one large sphere. These are the Legendary cards, and the most powerful of each suit. Legendary cards may be used as the highest-ranking card in their suit, or as a Ruling Class card. When played as Ruling Class (trump) the hierarchy of Legendary cards are as follows: Monk (lowest), Samurai, Ninja, Shogun (most powerful).
Play continues with players using their cards to win Conscriptions (tricks) and meet their bid. Should a player meet their bid exactly then they score Influence (VP) for their tricks won. Should a player win more tricks than bid earlier, they still score Influence for the tricks won, but those tricks in excess of the bid amount are scored also as Corruption. When a player meets seven Corruption they immediately lose 10 Influence and the Corruption counter resets for that player. If, by chance, a player does not meet the mandatory bid of three tricks, their Influence is lowered by one point. However, should a player bid higher than the minimum of three but not meet that bid their score will be reduced by the amount of the bid for the round (example: a player bids seven tricks but earns only five. They reduce their Influence by seven points – ouch).
Once scores are tallied at the end of each round, a winner may be announced if they score at least 35 points. If no winner is crowned this round, a new dealer is assumed and another round setup as at the start of the game.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game and this copy is actually hand-made by the good people at Guise Gaming. Each card in this copy is laminated and the game box is HAND PAINTED. I have never received a hand painted box before, and it is certainly appreciated. So aside from the non-manufactured components, the art is quite good on the cards. I know some players will have issues with the backgrounds seeming plain, but I quite appreciate it so that I can concentrate on the game and not be overly distracted by what may be happening in the backgrounds.
Gameplay is good, if not a bit confusing at first. With four different suits containing essentially the standard 13 cards per suit it should be an easy no-brainer to keep things squared away. However, I found that having the rule booklet open to the page detailing the hierarchy of sphere color/material was very handy for other players. The Legendary cards are easy to distinguish because they look cool and different from all the other cards. I really know nothing about any Asian language, so the characters (or letters/words) depicted on the cards are of no help to me trying to distinguish power levels.
That said, when contacted by the publisher about A Battle of Onin, they mentioned that other people were calling it a theming of Spades. While I can understand this simplification, what I have yet to mention is that the game also comes with a bevvy of optional scoring rules and a welcoming message to include any sort of house rules deemed enjoyable. Spades does not do that, to my knowledge. While the vanilla gameplay is very similar to Spades, A Battle of Onin using any of these optional scoring modes certainly adds layers of complexity that may be daunting to use at first, but may attract more hardcore gamers.
All in all I am so glad I was able to try A Battle of Onin. Once the suits and power levels are learned, the game is quite snappy and enjoyable. The art is beautiful, and I applaud the use of orange background for the Legendary cards. If you are looking for a different spin on Spades I urge you to take a look at A Battle of Onin. It might surprise you with the varying levels of difficulty found within the optional scoring rules, and a bit more intrigue than the classic game upon which it is based. Personally, my D&D Monk might argue that he is far superior to any Shogun, but also he just kicked in a door that contained a room full of vampires. So there’s that.
A Battle for Onin is a trick-taking card game where players will be using Shoguns, Ninjas, Samurai, and Monks as suits and each suit will have differing levels of hierarchy. The first player to earn 35 total influence (VP) will claim victory.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a prototype copy of this game for the purposes of this review. These are preview copy components, and I do not know for sure if the final components will be any different from these shown. Also, it is not my intention to detail every rule in the game, as there are just too many. You are invited to download the rulebook, back the game through the Kickstarter campaign, or through any retailers stocking it after fulfillment. -T
To setup shuffle the deck of cards and deal each player 13 cards. The dealer then flips the top card of the deck and becomes the Ruling Class (trump) for the hand. The game is now setup and ready to begin!\
After the Ruling Class has been revealed, the player left of the dealer will make a bid for how many Conscriptions (tricks) they believe they will take in the round, with a minimum bid of 3 tricks for all players. Each other player will do the same until the leading player’s turn comes back around. That player then proceeds to play cards from hand in attempt to win tricks. Like in most trick-taking games player will need to follow the suit that was led (or flipped at the beginning of the round). A twist here is that trump may not be led until it has been used to win a trick previously within the round.
As mentioned earlier, each suit has a hierarchy of power, where Bronze is the lowest in power increasing to Silver, then to Gold, and finally to Jade. Within these divisions are yet three more classifications of power: one sphere (lowest) to three spheres (most powerful). In addition still is one card from each suit whose background is orange in color and features one large sphere. These are the Legendary cards, and the most powerful of each suit. Legendary cards may be used as the highest-ranking card in their suit, or as a Ruling Class card. When played as Ruling Class (trump) the hierarchy of Legendary cards are as follows: Monk (lowest), Samurai, Ninja, Shogun (most powerful).
Play continues with players using their cards to win Conscriptions (tricks) and meet their bid. Should a player meet their bid exactly then they score Influence (VP) for their tricks won. Should a player win more tricks than bid earlier, they still score Influence for the tricks won, but those tricks in excess of the bid amount are scored also as Corruption. When a player meets seven Corruption they immediately lose 10 Influence and the Corruption counter resets for that player. If, by chance, a player does not meet the mandatory bid of three tricks, their Influence is lowered by one point. However, should a player bid higher than the minimum of three but not meet that bid their score will be reduced by the amount of the bid for the round (example: a player bids seven tricks but earns only five. They reduce their Influence by seven points – ouch).
Once scores are tallied at the end of each round, a winner may be announced if they score at least 35 points. If no winner is crowned this round, a new dealer is assumed and another round setup as at the start of the game.
Components. Again, this is a prototype copy of the game and this copy is actually hand-made by the good people at Guise Gaming. Each card in this copy is laminated and the game box is HAND PAINTED. I have never received a hand painted box before, and it is certainly appreciated. So aside from the non-manufactured components, the art is quite good on the cards. I know some players will have issues with the backgrounds seeming plain, but I quite appreciate it so that I can concentrate on the game and not be overly distracted by what may be happening in the backgrounds.
Gameplay is good, if not a bit confusing at first. With four different suits containing essentially the standard 13 cards per suit it should be an easy no-brainer to keep things squared away. However, I found that having the rule booklet open to the page detailing the hierarchy of sphere color/material was very handy for other players. The Legendary cards are easy to distinguish because they look cool and different from all the other cards. I really know nothing about any Asian language, so the characters (or letters/words) depicted on the cards are of no help to me trying to distinguish power levels.
That said, when contacted by the publisher about A Battle of Onin, they mentioned that other people were calling it a theming of Spades. While I can understand this simplification, what I have yet to mention is that the game also comes with a bevvy of optional scoring rules and a welcoming message to include any sort of house rules deemed enjoyable. Spades does not do that, to my knowledge. While the vanilla gameplay is very similar to Spades, A Battle of Onin using any of these optional scoring modes certainly adds layers of complexity that may be daunting to use at first, but may attract more hardcore gamers.
All in all I am so glad I was able to try A Battle of Onin. Once the suits and power levels are learned, the game is quite snappy and enjoyable. The art is beautiful, and I applaud the use of orange background for the Legendary cards. If you are looking for a different spin on Spades I urge you to take a look at A Battle of Onin. It might surprise you with the varying levels of difficulty found within the optional scoring rules, and a bit more intrigue than the classic game upon which it is based. Personally, my D&D Monk might argue that he is far superior to any Shogun, but also he just kicked in a door that contained a room full of vampires. So there’s that.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Matt Damon asked Christian Bale how he had managed to lose almost 70lbs for his role as Ken Miles, following his chubbing up to play Dick Cheney in Vice the previous year. Bale just smiled, shrugged and said, “I didn’t eat”. Such is his reputation for playing real people with 100% commitment, apocryphal or not, I totally believe that is true.
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Jan 20, 2020
An endurance test but a great endurance test
Martin Scorsese made a lot of enemies recently with his rant against the superficiality of the Marvel movies. But you can hardly argue that his latest film is superficial. We see the mobster Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro) in his old people's home wistfully recalling his past life. Through flashback we go back to times as early as his service in World War II, where he learned to kill other men without a second thought.
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Later, back in Philadelphia, Sheeran has a chance meeting with mob-leader Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) and Buffalino hires him as a hit man. It's a working relationship and friendship that is going to last a lifetime.... however long that may be in this business! But it also brings Sheeran into a relationship with union leader Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino). And those of you with any knowledge of the history of Jimmy Hoffa (or remember that scene in "Bruce Almighty"!) will recall what happened to him!
One of the issues with these sort of films is that it is impossible (unless you are reading this as a borderline psycho) to form any sort of empathetic relationship with any of the characters. It's horrifying that this is based on a true story: you'd really like to assume that all of this sort of stuff was solely on the pages of tacky crime novels, and not reality.
The horror of Sheeran's actions are neatly reflected by screenwriter Steven Zaillian ("Schindler's List", "Clear and Present Danger") in the impact on his family, particularly on his impressionable young daughter Peggy (Lucy Gallina). Only when he is old and grey can Peggy (now Anna Paquin) vent at her father for the damage done.
The "youngification" work on De Niro and Pesci is really essential for the film to work. Finding a younger actor to play either of these iconic actors would have been a stretch. Here it's very well done. But I will again suggest that we are probably another ten years of technology advancement away from removing the "uncanny valley" effect from scenes like this. It just doesn't quite work for me for a reason I can't put my finger on.
After the career nadir of "Dirty Grandpa" it looked like Robert De Niro might have nothing but bread commercials and dog-food ads to look forward to. However, within three months we've had a resurgence of form: his great performance in "Joker" and now this. Of course, this is a role that he can play in his sleep. And I suspect that might count against him in the Oscar/Bafta season. But its undeniably a great performance.
Joe Pesci (famously mocked as "Baby Yoda" by Ricky Gervais in his hilarious Golden Globe roasting) and Al Pacino are also great, with Pacino being particular impressive as the fanatically focused union boss unable to see the danger he is in. "It is what it is" repeats Sheeran over and over again to deaf ears. A memorable scene.
Again Zaillian's script is brilliant in creating an impossibly tense triangular friendship between the three men. His family love Hoffa and dislike/distrust Buffalino. When the triangle gets stretched to breaking point, and a link needs to be broken, which way will Sheeran jump?
For me, good movies should be seen in the cinema. But I missed its short (to make it Oscar-worthy) release so had to catch it up on the small(-er) screen. Cinemas seem reluctant to stick an "interval" in programmes these days: never quite sure why, since most movie-goers if we are talking a 2 hour+ movie might welcome a loo-break, and the cinema could also sell more ice-cream! But at three and a half hours, a cinema trip would be a bladder-testing challenge for sure. So this is one that I wasn't unhappy to use the pause button on!
It's a superbly constructed movie and well deserved its place on the Oscars "Best Movie" shortlist. It's tense, dramatic and has enough variety of people being shot in the head to make it ghoulishly watchable.
However, while I can appreciate the technical art of the film, and I'm delighted I got to see it, a top film for me needs to be one I would reach for on my DVD rack (spot the old-fashinoned git) for multiple watches. And for all its worthiness, this doesn't really fit the bill.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-irishman-2019/ ).
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 11, 2021
After the MCU rounded up with Endgame I was having Marvel fatigue, I had my issues with the Spider-man movie, and I haven't been thrilled by the TV series that we've been getting on Disney+. I had managed to avoid most of the Black Widow coverage until getting back to the cinema, but even seeing the trailer on the big screen didn't get me pumped for it.
Natasha Romanoff is on the run... rewind the MCU a bit... Black Widow is on the run after the incident with the Sokovia accords. While she's on the move (and somehow invisible to detection despite being an Avenger... on the run) her past catches up with her, and after an awkward family reunion, they have to work together to rectify the mistakes of the past.
So how did this next outing in the MCU go down?
I wasn't mad about, or at, it. It nicely aligned itself with its position in the universe in a way that didn't feel too forced, and finally getting the history that the previous films alluded to... well, it was about time. I was surprised how well it managed to condense her story down and still manage to give enough to help it flow. I'm not sure it's the story I was expecting, or necessarily hoped for, but it was good. (I had assumed that we would be getting more about the inside of the Red Room, and not the results of it on the older recruits.)
Johansson gave a solid performance as you'd expect, she's perfected the role over the years and this performance sat well within the character she'd already developed. But what about the other cast members?
MVP for me was Florence Pugh as Yelena. A little frustrating for me to say, but I said it. The sisterly bond with Natasha was there in spades and she managed to grasp the emotion of the family moments so well. And her comedic timing with the sharp script was magnificent. I was delighted every time I saw her on the screen.
Playing Natasha and Yelena's parents are David Harbour and Rachel Weisz. An amusing pairing, with a very opposites attract kind of vibe. Alexie (Harbour) seems to change a lot from the historical points, and he also gets the comical treatment too, but in a more over the top way than Yelena. He had his moments, though I'm not sure it all landed. Weisz plays Melina, a straight-laced scientist/spy. Together they make an interesting team, but I'm not convinced that Melina would have stood up without Alexie.
My only problem with the case? Sometimes I found it a little jarring hearing those accents. Sure, it's nice to have a big recognisable cast, but listening to those accents from people you know really well from other things was continually off-putting.
I was thankful when the story started to pick up a bit. The beginning felt like a bit of a slog, and I was starting to lose hope. Looking back on it, 2 hours 13 minutes is a lot for what happened. It could easily have tightened up a bit and come in at around 2 hours. (And on the other end of the film, though completely separate to the run time... why put the credit scene right at the end?!)
The benefit of this film when it came to effects is that there was very little out of the ordinary that needed to be done. That meant that everything looked good on screen. I honestly didn't spot anything that stuck out like a sore thumb... or a Thanos henchman... that seems more appropriate given the film's universe. The studio have got CGI down to a fine art at this point.
As I said above, Black Widow gave a nice story to the character, and I can't help but think that they could have given her this before now, and not kicked her out into the sidelines behind the male superheroes. (Well, apart from Hawkeye, poor bugger.) I'm not bothered about seeing this again, which is odd for me as I will usually try and see a Marvel in 3D too. Even odder, because it's basically all that's on at my cinema right now. But I don't feel like I need to go back to try and spot things to link to other films. It feels very inconsequential at this point and, while I enjoyed it, a bit of a letdown.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/black-widow-movie-review.html
Natasha Romanoff is on the run... rewind the MCU a bit... Black Widow is on the run after the incident with the Sokovia accords. While she's on the move (and somehow invisible to detection despite being an Avenger... on the run) her past catches up with her, and after an awkward family reunion, they have to work together to rectify the mistakes of the past.
So how did this next outing in the MCU go down?
I wasn't mad about, or at, it. It nicely aligned itself with its position in the universe in a way that didn't feel too forced, and finally getting the history that the previous films alluded to... well, it was about time. I was surprised how well it managed to condense her story down and still manage to give enough to help it flow. I'm not sure it's the story I was expecting, or necessarily hoped for, but it was good. (I had assumed that we would be getting more about the inside of the Red Room, and not the results of it on the older recruits.)
Johansson gave a solid performance as you'd expect, she's perfected the role over the years and this performance sat well within the character she'd already developed. But what about the other cast members?
MVP for me was Florence Pugh as Yelena. A little frustrating for me to say, but I said it. The sisterly bond with Natasha was there in spades and she managed to grasp the emotion of the family moments so well. And her comedic timing with the sharp script was magnificent. I was delighted every time I saw her on the screen.
Playing Natasha and Yelena's parents are David Harbour and Rachel Weisz. An amusing pairing, with a very opposites attract kind of vibe. Alexie (Harbour) seems to change a lot from the historical points, and he also gets the comical treatment too, but in a more over the top way than Yelena. He had his moments, though I'm not sure it all landed. Weisz plays Melina, a straight-laced scientist/spy. Together they make an interesting team, but I'm not convinced that Melina would have stood up without Alexie.
My only problem with the case? Sometimes I found it a little jarring hearing those accents. Sure, it's nice to have a big recognisable cast, but listening to those accents from people you know really well from other things was continually off-putting.
I was thankful when the story started to pick up a bit. The beginning felt like a bit of a slog, and I was starting to lose hope. Looking back on it, 2 hours 13 minutes is a lot for what happened. It could easily have tightened up a bit and come in at around 2 hours. (And on the other end of the film, though completely separate to the run time... why put the credit scene right at the end?!)
The benefit of this film when it came to effects is that there was very little out of the ordinary that needed to be done. That meant that everything looked good on screen. I honestly didn't spot anything that stuck out like a sore thumb... or a Thanos henchman... that seems more appropriate given the film's universe. The studio have got CGI down to a fine art at this point.
As I said above, Black Widow gave a nice story to the character, and I can't help but think that they could have given her this before now, and not kicked her out into the sidelines behind the male superheroes. (Well, apart from Hawkeye, poor bugger.) I'm not bothered about seeing this again, which is odd for me as I will usually try and see a Marvel in 3D too. Even odder, because it's basically all that's on at my cinema right now. But I don't feel like I need to go back to try and spot things to link to other films. It feels very inconsequential at this point and, while I enjoyed it, a bit of a letdown.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/black-widow-movie-review.html
Tyler Fletcher (8 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 14, 2020
Character development (1 more)
Forgettable story
Another Live-Action Disney Adaption Bomb
Contains spoilers, click to show
What is it about fantasy novels that makes them so difficult to translate effectively to the silver screen? It’s not impossible – J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series and Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings adaptations are proof that it can be done. More often than not, however, the result is as limp and truncated as Kenneth Branagh’s Artemis Fowl – a few standout moments set adrift in a sea of underdeveloped characters, incomplete backstory elements, and abbreviated world building. Although the problem lies primarily in the difficulties associated with condensing an epic tale into a short-ish movie, the lack of elegance with which that is accomplished makes Artemis Fowl a failure for anyone hoping for the next great fantasy film.
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
In the search for a way to watch the 92nd Academy Awards live from Hollywood tonight I was led to a subscription for Now TV, which is basically the online platform for Sky Cinema. And there I found all the missing films I had yet to see from last year that aren’t available “free” on Amazon Prime or Netflix. I should really have worked it out before now that a free trial might be available, having assumed that a Sky subscription was beyond my means at the moment. Imagine my excitement to not only secure the Oscars but a 7 day pass to catch up on some big titles. It’s the small things in life…
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
Bill & Hillary : So This Is That Thing Called Love
Darwin Porter and Danforth Prince
Book
On the campus of Yale University, in 1970, an "odd couple," Hillary Rodham and Bill ("Bubba")...
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Robert Eggers made a striking introduction for himself in 2015 with the moody and disconcerting The Witch, bringing a future star to the world’s attention in Anya Taylor-Joy in the process. You could argue after seeing his sophomore effort, The Lighthouse, that in terms of creating deliberately nauseating landscapes his work is the third cog in the arthouse revival of intellectual “horror”, after Ari Aster (Hereditary / Midsommar) and Jordan Peele (Get Out / Us). The group actually sits quite well together, as there is an obvious social commentary by metaphor crossover going on here, as well as just a little bit of “crazy”.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.
The point of difference up front with Eggars seems to be an earthiness. He likes dirt, and straw and rain and holes in the ground, and a sense of temperature in a scene (usually very cold). He also loves to frame an image and hold it there simply for the bizarre beauty of it, much as David Lynch has done unapologetically and without explanation his whole career.
As perfect as Tayor-Joy was in The Witch for her innocent otherworldly qualities, so Willem Dafoe is also as a craggy, sweaty-toothed old man of the sea in this. Whatever else you take, or don’t take from The Lighthouse, it is hard to deny the absolute cinematic purity of Dafoe’s face! It alone will guarantee this film’s cult status (and his) forever. And I do mean forever; the very best images of this film are worthy to be frozen, framed and wondered at alongside the most enduring black and white iconography in the entire history of the art form. And most often the best images involve Dafoe.
He is just so damn interesting to look at, all the time, no matter what. His range as an actor over the years just gets more and more impressive the more you think about it. He is capable of being heartbreakingly vulnerable and tender, but can also be terrifying on demand. His streak of dark humour can not be underestimated either – consider the genius of his introduction here, where the simple touch of his pipe being upside down tells you everything you need to know about this man and where this film is going.
Except, we don’t know where it is going. Ever. It is a very odd experience in terms of a satisfying narrative. It never seems to settle or fit into a genre comfortably, which is fine if all elements sublimate magically, but I don’t think they quite do. Is it a horror, a comedy, a psychological thriller, a study of loneliness and isolation, a metaphor for… something? The closest I can get is to say it is as if Lynch remade Young Frankenstein with just Igor and Dr Frankenstein, at a lighthouse, but forgot to make it funny or cohere into a real story. Of course, the things that I am reaching for as shortcomings may be exactly what others see as strengths. There is something to be said for being taken on a journey you can’t define or easily explain.
Quite often on this journey we are teased and fed details that seem to go nowhere, and avenues that may have proved interesting to explore are closed with a bang, in favour of another drinking scene and another fight – which are great the first few times, but become repetitive to a baffling degree later on. Mythology and dreams of the sea are played with, but also not fully approached; we are only given brief flashes of Mermaids and Krakens, nightmares and visions only, before returning to the mundanity and drudgery of the job of a lighthouse keeper. You are often left wondering who is going more mad, the men in the film or you watching it. I definitely recommend the best way to watch this is a little or a lot drunk, very late at night… it demands it, somehow.
It is difficult for all these reasons to say with any true certainty then, after just one viewing, if I think it is any good… I don’t know yet, I will have to watch it again some time to find out, is my best answer. For sure the photography is 100% first rate and instantly unforgettable – Jarin Blaschke was deservedly Oscar nominated for the extremely fine work – and the design and feel of the whole thing is quite masterful. I really want to like it more than I do, and perhaps if I was still in my wide-eyed twenties I would be enthusing about it endlessly, but now… I can see a touch of the Emperor’s new clothes about it, so am cautious of praising it too much.
One other element that is impressive, however, that I have yet to touch on, is the continued rise of Mr Robert Pattinson as an actor of serious note. As I have already touched on recently in other reviews, I did not see this coming, that it would be him that I was naming as one of the most promising talents of his age group working in film today! But you just can’t deny his versatility and understanding of genre and character. He puts in another very solid effort here, full of interesting choices and nuance; he is certainly an exciting prospect for the decade ahead.
In summary. See it. Unless you absolutely hate things that don’t tie the strings up nice and neatly, and decide for yourself. Some people will hate it, and I get that. It is a film-lovers film, for sure. Mesmerising and Meticulous, as one critic put it. Admire it for the craft involved, and experience it with an open mind. Just don’t go in expecting traditional horror, or traditional drama, or traditional comedy, or even traditional surrealism… The Lighthouse, for all it’s debatable flaws is unique! I suggest you let it be that way by not over-reaching to define it.