Search
Search results
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Memoirs of a Geisha in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Memoirs of a Geisha is a historical fiction book published on September 27th 1997. Told in the first person Viewpoint of Geisha Sayuri (Original name Chiyo), It follows her journey from her childhood in a fishing village on the coast of Japan, forcibly taken to a Hanamachi in Gion Kyoto and raised to become a Geisha before experiencing the horrors of WW2 and being a Geisha during the hard work of rebuilding after a harrowing defeat.
My opinion of the book is one of both curiosity and interest. Japan is one of those countries where its history and culture is both unusual and mysterious. The book gives a brief glimpse into the hidden world of the Geisha which are a prominent spot in Japanese culture but are relatively unknown world wide. I believe that the story of Sayuri is one of personal travel and evolution. Since we see Sayuri';s experience as a child before becoming a Geisha, experiencing the horror of war and eventually finding love with the Chairman.
Arthur Golden was born on December 6th 1956 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. When he was eight years old his parents divorced with his father dying five years later. He spent most of his childhood living in lookout mountain, Georgia before graduating from the Baylor school in Chattanooga in 1974. After earning a degree in Fine art (Specifically Japanese art), an M. A. in Japanese history, Golden spent a summer at the Peking University in Beijing and spent some time working in Tokyo. When he returned to the states he earned an M. A. in English at Boston University. Golden married Trudi Legge and they went on to have two children Hays and Tess.
After getting the initial idea for Memoirs of a Geisha Golden spent six years over the story rewriting it at least three times, changing the view point until settling on the viewpoint of Sayuri. Golden had spent time interviewing several Geisha including Mineko Iwasaki (who ended up suing Golden when the Japanese version of the book came out for breach of contract.....the case was settled out of court in 2003) all of whom provided information about the world of the Geisha. After its release Memoirs of a Geisha spent two years on the New York Times bestseller list, its sold more than four million copies in English alone and has been translated into thirty-two languages around the world. In 2005 the book was made into a movie garnering three academy awards.
My opinion of Arthur Golden is very small and somewhat limited.......I believe he is a fantastic writer and very knowledgeable about Japanese history and art....Much more so than I am but hearing he faced being sued because of citing who his sources were when he was contracted not to has put something of a dampener on his character in my eyes.
Memoirs of a Geisha was released as a Movie on December 9th 2005 under director Rob Marshall and Produced by Steven Spielberg's production Company Amblin Entertainment and Spyglass Entertainment. With its production from pre- to post-production taking place mainly in California US, with a few spots filmed in Kyoto Japan. The movie received mixed reviews in the western world and received somewhat negative reviews in Japan due to its mixed casting of Chinese and Japanese actors and actresses and its relationship to history. Despite the chaos they won three Academy Awards (Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design), a Golden Globe (Best Original Score), A national Board of review (Best Supporting Actress), a satellite award (Outstanding screenplay) and three BAFTA's (Cinematography, Costume design and the Anthony Asquith award for Achievement in film music).
Whilst I quite like the movie I definitely feel that if more effort was put into tying more of both Japanese and Geisha history was some how tied into the movie. As well as using more Japanese Actors and actresses in the roles......despite that I believe the actors and actresses did a very good job in brining the script to life and keep a layer of mystery and fluidity to their roles.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, its definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
My opinion of the book is one of both curiosity and interest. Japan is one of those countries where its history and culture is both unusual and mysterious. The book gives a brief glimpse into the hidden world of the Geisha which are a prominent spot in Japanese culture but are relatively unknown world wide. I believe that the story of Sayuri is one of personal travel and evolution. Since we see Sayuri';s experience as a child before becoming a Geisha, experiencing the horror of war and eventually finding love with the Chairman.
Arthur Golden was born on December 6th 1956 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. When he was eight years old his parents divorced with his father dying five years later. He spent most of his childhood living in lookout mountain, Georgia before graduating from the Baylor school in Chattanooga in 1974. After earning a degree in Fine art (Specifically Japanese art), an M. A. in Japanese history, Golden spent a summer at the Peking University in Beijing and spent some time working in Tokyo. When he returned to the states he earned an M. A. in English at Boston University. Golden married Trudi Legge and they went on to have two children Hays and Tess.
After getting the initial idea for Memoirs of a Geisha Golden spent six years over the story rewriting it at least three times, changing the view point until settling on the viewpoint of Sayuri. Golden had spent time interviewing several Geisha including Mineko Iwasaki (who ended up suing Golden when the Japanese version of the book came out for breach of contract.....the case was settled out of court in 2003) all of whom provided information about the world of the Geisha. After its release Memoirs of a Geisha spent two years on the New York Times bestseller list, its sold more than four million copies in English alone and has been translated into thirty-two languages around the world. In 2005 the book was made into a movie garnering three academy awards.
My opinion of Arthur Golden is very small and somewhat limited.......I believe he is a fantastic writer and very knowledgeable about Japanese history and art....Much more so than I am but hearing he faced being sued because of citing who his sources were when he was contracted not to has put something of a dampener on his character in my eyes.
Memoirs of a Geisha was released as a Movie on December 9th 2005 under director Rob Marshall and Produced by Steven Spielberg's production Company Amblin Entertainment and Spyglass Entertainment. With its production from pre- to post-production taking place mainly in California US, with a few spots filmed in Kyoto Japan. The movie received mixed reviews in the western world and received somewhat negative reviews in Japan due to its mixed casting of Chinese and Japanese actors and actresses and its relationship to history. Despite the chaos they won three Academy Awards (Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design), a Golden Globe (Best Original Score), A national Board of review (Best Supporting Actress), a satellite award (Outstanding screenplay) and three BAFTA's (Cinematography, Costume design and the Anthony Asquith award for Achievement in film music).
Whilst I quite like the movie I definitely feel that if more effort was put into tying more of both Japanese and Geisha history was some how tied into the movie. As well as using more Japanese Actors and actresses in the roles......despite that I believe the actors and actresses did a very good job in brining the script to life and keep a layer of mystery and fluidity to their roles.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, its definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Dec 31, 2019
Why?!
I know the original Hellboy films didn’t do well critically, but they got a fairly decent fan following and I personally loved them, so I really didn’t see why they wanted to remake it. And after watching this disaster, I definitely cannot understand why they bothered to remake it!
I’ll start with the good bits, which won’t take long as David Harbour and Ian McShane are pretty much the only decent things about this film. Ian McShane seems to be playing his usual charismatic, crazy old man character (very reminiscent of Mr Wednesday) and I’m not complaining, as this is exactly what I love about him and he’s a rather good less nice version of Professor Broom. And David Harbour is a good Hellboy and gets the very few laughs there is in this, although I think he’s very let down and not able to shine properly because of the dodgy script and just general terribleness of this film. There’s also a decent rock soundtrack accompanying the fight scenes and a fairly fun amount of gore.
And now the bad. There’s far too much cgi in this and it isn’t always good, and they should’ve toned this down a lot. The plot and progression of the entire story is just bizarre, it was just downright ridiculous. They seem to have decided to try and fit in a strange assortment of folk tales and historic legends, like the Pendle Hill witches and King Arthur, and this is alongside the already crazy (but just about believable) origin of Hellboy himself and the Nazis. Even the bad guys in this are cheesy and not particularly threatening - Milla Jovovich with a horrendous English accent and a pig creature with a Scouse accent?! I know Stephen Graham is from Liverpool but that accent on that particular character was possible the most bizarre and frustrating thing I’ve ever seen. And also despite the main lead up being slightly different, the end result to Hellboy personally is exactly the same as the original. Why not try and come up with something completely different to avoid yet more negative comparisons to the original?
This is one film that should never have seen the light of day.
I’ll start with the good bits, which won’t take long as David Harbour and Ian McShane are pretty much the only decent things about this film. Ian McShane seems to be playing his usual charismatic, crazy old man character (very reminiscent of Mr Wednesday) and I’m not complaining, as this is exactly what I love about him and he’s a rather good less nice version of Professor Broom. And David Harbour is a good Hellboy and gets the very few laughs there is in this, although I think he’s very let down and not able to shine properly because of the dodgy script and just general terribleness of this film. There’s also a decent rock soundtrack accompanying the fight scenes and a fairly fun amount of gore.
And now the bad. There’s far too much cgi in this and it isn’t always good, and they should’ve toned this down a lot. The plot and progression of the entire story is just bizarre, it was just downright ridiculous. They seem to have decided to try and fit in a strange assortment of folk tales and historic legends, like the Pendle Hill witches and King Arthur, and this is alongside the already crazy (but just about believable) origin of Hellboy himself and the Nazis. Even the bad guys in this are cheesy and not particularly threatening - Milla Jovovich with a horrendous English accent and a pig creature with a Scouse accent?! I know Stephen Graham is from Liverpool but that accent on that particular character was possible the most bizarre and frustrating thing I’ve ever seen. And also despite the main lead up being slightly different, the end result to Hellboy personally is exactly the same as the original. Why not try and come up with something completely different to avoid yet more negative comparisons to the original?
This is one film that should never have seen the light of day.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Color Out of Space (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Color out of Space Is a film based on a H.P. Lovecraft staring Nicholas Cage so you know it's going to be weird.
So, tell me if you've heard this one before. A meteor lands on an isolated farm and the farmer and his family have to fight off what it brought with it. If this sound familiar then that because it's been used so often it's become a common Sci-Fi trope but, all tropes have to come from somewhere and the works of Lovecraft have interwoven themselves into many modern works. I mention this because, as well as it's main premise, there are a lot of familiar scenes and concepts. You see creatures that remind you of the 'Thing' and transformations reminiscent of the original 'Quatermass Experiment' as well as creepy kids and a well but you have to remember that Color out of Space is most likely the source material and not the other way round (The Thing it's self is filled with Lovecraftian ideas even though it's based on a story by different author.)
As the films title hints, the actual creature is a color (or Colour if you're English) which is a strange concept in its self and the effects it has on the world around it only unfold slowly but, like in the other films I've mentioned, they end in horror (and body horror).
The theme of colour, even in it's strange use here, leads to the film being pretty in parts and as the film goes on the landscape takes on eerie life of it's own very much like the Martian weed taking over London in 'War of the Worlds'.
The film it's self is odd, you keep expecting the main family to be one of those stereotypical dysfunctional family's but, every time they seem to falling apart they pull together and, even their decent into madness doesn't pull them apart. The whole thing is made even strange by Nicholas Cage who is his usual, over the top self; Throwing tantrums and monologing to people who aren't really there, although, I'm happy to say his performance is not as OTT as it was in 'Mandy' where he went full Cage (which was great for that film but Color out of space is slightly more subdued, slightly but not much.)
There is blood but most of the horror either happens off screen or is just implied and even the monsters are just there just to be seen, although they do have a point to the story.
Color out of Space is a good but slightly strange cosmic horror with Nicholas Cage being as strange as usual aided in his strangeness by Madeleine Arthur, playing his daughter, Lavinia. with the exception of Tommy Chong's Ezra the rest of the cast play it mostly straight.
So, tell me if you've heard this one before. A meteor lands on an isolated farm and the farmer and his family have to fight off what it brought with it. If this sound familiar then that because it's been used so often it's become a common Sci-Fi trope but, all tropes have to come from somewhere and the works of Lovecraft have interwoven themselves into many modern works. I mention this because, as well as it's main premise, there are a lot of familiar scenes and concepts. You see creatures that remind you of the 'Thing' and transformations reminiscent of the original 'Quatermass Experiment' as well as creepy kids and a well but you have to remember that Color out of Space is most likely the source material and not the other way round (The Thing it's self is filled with Lovecraftian ideas even though it's based on a story by different author.)
As the films title hints, the actual creature is a color (or Colour if you're English) which is a strange concept in its self and the effects it has on the world around it only unfold slowly but, like in the other films I've mentioned, they end in horror (and body horror).
The theme of colour, even in it's strange use here, leads to the film being pretty in parts and as the film goes on the landscape takes on eerie life of it's own very much like the Martian weed taking over London in 'War of the Worlds'.
The film it's self is odd, you keep expecting the main family to be one of those stereotypical dysfunctional family's but, every time they seem to falling apart they pull together and, even their decent into madness doesn't pull them apart. The whole thing is made even strange by Nicholas Cage who is his usual, over the top self; Throwing tantrums and monologing to people who aren't really there, although, I'm happy to say his performance is not as OTT as it was in 'Mandy' where he went full Cage (which was great for that film but Color out of space is slightly more subdued, slightly but not much.)
There is blood but most of the horror either happens off screen or is just implied and even the monsters are just there just to be seen, although they do have a point to the story.
Color out of Space is a good but slightly strange cosmic horror with Nicholas Cage being as strange as usual aided in his strangeness by Madeleine Arthur, playing his daughter, Lavinia. with the exception of Tommy Chong's Ezra the rest of the cast play it mostly straight.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Snow Child in Books
May 30, 2017
A Fairytale
“Terrific”, “Spellbinding” and “Enchanting” are just three of the many words that critics have used to describe this book; they are also a slight exaggeration. Obviously it is a matter of personal opinion but this novel, whilst having an interesting storyline, was a little too drawn out and, at times… not exactly boring but not all that gripping.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, Snegurochka, which in English translates to The Snow Maiden. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, Little Daughter of the Snow, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with Snegurochka and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that The Snow Child will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, The Snow Child was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, Snegurochka, which in English translates to The Snow Maiden. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, Little Daughter of the Snow, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with Snegurochka and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that The Snow Child will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, The Snow Child was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Snow Child in Books
Dec 14, 2018
“Terrific”, “Spellbinding” and “Enchanting” are just three of the many words that critics have used to describe this book; they are also a slight exaggeration. Obviously it is a matter of personal opinion but this novel, whilst having an interesting storyline, was a little too drawn out and, at times… not exactly boring but not all that gripping.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, <i>Snegurochka</i>, which in English translates to <i>The Snow Maiden</i>. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, <i>Little Daughter of the Snow</i>, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with <i>Snegurochka</i> and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that <i>The Snow Child</i> will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, <i>The Snow Child</i> was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Set in Alaska during the 1920s this is the story of a couple, Jack and Mabel, who, aside from a stillbirth, have not had any children despite their desperate longing. Now that they are both approaching fifty years of age they know that they will never be able to have a son or daughter of their own. One winter, during the first snowfall, the two of them on an uncharacteristic, spur of the moment impulse build a snowman next to their cabin. Rather than building a large snowman they make a smaller one in the shape of a girl, decorating her with scarves and mittens – they have made a snow girl.
Eowyn Ivey has based her novel on a Russian fairy tale, <i>Snegurochka</i>, which in English translates to <i>The Snow Maiden</i>. It was Arthur Ransome’s retelling, <i>Little Daughter of the Snow</i>, which inspired Ivey, but the general storyline is essentially the same, although some versions have alternative endings. For those who are familiar with <i>Snegurochka</i> and its variants will know that it does not end happily therefore it seems inevitable that <i>The Snow Child</i> will head in the same direction. However which ending will it most resemble?
Throughout the novel it is impossible to be absolutely sure that the little girl who turns up outside the cabin the day after the snowman has been built (and destroyed) is in fact the snow girl magically transformed into flesh and bone; or whether it is a lost child and the circumstance are purely coincidental. There is a third option: Jack and Mabel could be imagining things through their desperate longing, but this is easy to rule out.
The snow is understandably a key theme throughout the story. At the beginning the anticipated Alaskan winter is imagined as a “cold on the valley like a coming death”. Not only will it be unbearably freezing, Jack and Mabel will struggle to make do with their limited amount of food and supplies. After the arrival of the child the winter becomes a happy occasion. Jack and Mabel’s relationship improves and they become less isolated after befriending some neighbours. The only heartbreak is when the girl, Faina, disappears in the spring; but as she comes back as soon as it snows, winter becomes something to look forward to. Another snowy link in the story is Faina’s name, which she claims means “the colour on snow when the sun turns” in Russian. This also makes the idea of her truly being the snow girl more convincing.
The novel does predictably have an unhappy ending but the epilogue makes up for this by revealing the contentment of the remaining characters a few years into the future.
As already mentioned, <i>The Snow Child</i> was not a very gripping read, but it was a beautiful tale in the way that fairy tales, even those with unhappy endings, often can be.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Arthurian legend: but with Cockneys.
So, bit difficult to describe this one… so I asked my bloke Alfie from Londinium to explain what’s it all about…
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
“‘Ere, OK bruv. So this is dun by that geezer Guy Ritchie – yer know, the one that dun that Sherlock Holmes with the Iron Man geezer Robert Junior Downey, that one. His new film is a rip-roarin’ acshun movie what retells da Arfurian legend in a novel new way.
That Hulk bloke Eric Bana is Arfur’s farfer an’ ‘e’s ‘avin’ a few problems wiv ‘is bruvver Vortigern (Jude Law, who’s a bi’ ov a cockney ‘imself, but ‘ere speaks like a posh bloke. Know what I mean?) So ‘e (Vortigern dat is) gets some magical ‘elp from some slippery watery bints in a puddle and so ‘is dad puts ‘is God Forbid in a boat an’ sends ‘im down da river ter The Smoke ter live wiv some prozzies.
But ‘e grows up big an’ strong an’ ‘andy wiv a sword. His friends tell ‘im ter get aaaht ov town as da King’s blokes are lookin’ fer da young geezer who would be king. An’ e says like “Scapa Flow sowf ov da river at dis time ov night. Are yew mad?”. So e gets caught like an’ gets tested by some famous football bloke ter pull a big sword aaaht ov just a random bi’ ov stone (nod, nod, wink wink, nice twist – ssshhh!).
The Vortigern bloke is very cross an’ tries to kill ‘im but ‘e gets rescued by some bird who can make birds, lol, an’ other fings do what she wants. So can Arfur beat ‘is uncle? Gawdon Bennet, I’m not gon’a tell yew da whole darn fing! Yer’ll ‘ave ter go an’ watch i’ ter find out.”
Thanks Alfie. Couldn’t have said it better myself!
The quirky style of Guy Ritchie isn’t one that you would think would translate well to the Arthurian setting, and as the film starts you tend to think you were right! But if you give it a chance it wears you down into acceptance and then – ultimately – a lot of enjoyment.
Jude Law is deliciously evil mixed with a heavy dose of mad, and delivers the goods.
Charlie Hunnam who plays Arthur (no, I hadn’t heard of him either but he was in the “Lost City of Z”) does a decent job as the medieval hunk, although he seems at time to have taken voice coaching in ‘Olde-English’ from Russell Crowe, since the lad’s Geordie accent seems to wander from Cockney through central southern England to Liverpudlian at one point (definitely channelling a young John Lennon)! Relative newcomer, the Spanish actress Astrid Bergès-Frisbey is effectively weird as the mage.
Particularly noteworthy (no pun intended) is the superb action soundtrack by Daniel Pemberton (“Steve Jobs“, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.“) which propels the action really well and contains some standout moments.
Also a standout in the technical categories is the editing by James Herbert, who did both of Downey Junior’s “Sherlock Holmes” films (in a similar style) and also “Edge of Tomorrow“. The style is typified with Arthur’s growth to manhood in the streets of London which is stylishly done.
I saw the film in 3D – not a particularly favourite format – but quite well done, although falls into the “trying too hard” category at times with lots of drifting embers… you know the sort.
It’s not bloody Shakespeare. It’s not even the bloody Arthurian legend as you know it. But it is bloody good fun if you let it in.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Vaughn and Golding cross the pond to deliver more of the same.
You would probably need to be living under a rock not to know that “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” is the follow-up film to Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman’s highly successful 2015 offering “Kingsman: The Secret Service”: a raucous, violent and rude entry into the spy-caper genre. And the sequel is more of the same: why mess with a crowd-pleasing formula?
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.